Braik v. Southwest Airlines Co.
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-08269
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Victoria Braik v. Southwest Airlines, Judge Demarchi denied Braik’s motion to disqualify herself because the alleged bias rested on disagreement with an earlier screening order.
Victoria Braik and Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi; the motion’s denial left the case subject to the earlier screening order and the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
What happened
In Victoria Braik v. Southwest Airlines Co., Victoria Braik, who was representing herself, asked the court to disqualify Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi after the court screened her complaint and found it failed to state a claim within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court had allowed her to file an amended complaint.
Braik alleged that the screening order involved “legal abuse,” due-process concerns, and bias or prejudice. The court considered the request under federal laws governing judicial disqualification. Those laws require facts showing that a reasonable, well-informed person could question the judge’s impartiality, generally based on something other than the judge’s rulings in the case.
Judge DeMarchi ruled that Braik’s allegations were conclusory and identified no outside source of bias. The court said disagreement with an adverse ruling is not enough to require disqualification, and denied the motion.
The detailed version
- Braik v. Southwest Airlines Co. · No. 5:25-cv-08269
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
Victoria Braik filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It found that the complaint failed to state a claim over which the court had subject-matter jurisdiction and gave Braik an opportunity to file an amended complaint by November 12, 2025.
Braik then moved to disqualify the judge. She alleged that the court committed “legal abuse” during screening, raised due-process concerns, and showed bias or prejudice. The opinion states that Braik was representing herself.
Legal standard
The court considered the motion under both 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 144 addresses recusal based on a party’s timely and sufficient statement of facts showing personal bias or prejudice. Section 455 requires disqualification in circumstances including personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The court explained that the substantive standard under both provisions is whether a reasonable, well-informed person would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Bias generally must stem from an outside source rather than from the judge’s rulings, opinions, or statements made during the case. A judge’s adverse ruling, standing alone, generally is not a valid basis for disqualification.
Ruling
The court held that Braik’s allegations were conclusory and did not identify a plausible outside source of bias or prejudice. Instead, the allegations stemmed solely from her disagreement with the court’s earlier screening order. The court also clarified that it had not dismissed her case; it had screened the complaint and allowed her to amend it. The motion to disqualify was denied.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.