Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC

Background

Aftern Sanderson, proceeding without a lawyer, moved under federal recusal statutes to have the court remove itself from the case. He filed the motion on September 23, 2025, after judgment had been entered and after that judgment had been upheld on appeal. The only matter pending when he filed the motion was his separate request for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court stated that it was denying that separate request in another order.

Sanderson argued that recusal was required because the court had not resolved damages, had made evidentiary rulings favoring the defendants, and had issued a disproportionate number of rulings favoring them. He also argued that Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave had issued biased mediation rules and had suppressed his filings from the docket. Sanderson described these matters collectively as “cumulative structural unfairness.”

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must step aside when an objective, fully informed observer could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. Section 455(b)(1) also requires recusal when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed facts. Section 144 provides a related procedure based on a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice.

The court explained that disqualifying bias generally must come from outside the judicial proceedings and must produce an opinion on the merits based on something other than what the judge learned while handling the case. Events during a case generally are not enough unless they show deep-seated favoritism or antagonism making fair judgment impossible. Adverse rulings, standing alone, almost never establish a basis for disqualification. The court also noted that it has a duty not to remove itself when recusal is unwarranted, because recusal motions cannot be used to choose a preferred judge or interfere with the administration of justice.

Because Sanderson was proceeding without a lawyer, the court said it would read his submissions liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments they suggested. It also stated that this liberal treatment did not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive rules.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court concluded that none of the reasons Sanderson identified justified recusal. It found that his claim of bias was based on alleged errors in rulings unfavorable to him and that the motion offered nothing beyond those alleged errors. The court therefore denied Sanderson’s motion for the court to recuse itself.

The conclusion states that the motion was “DENIED.” The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket No. 435 and mail Sanderson a copy of the order. It also requested that defense counsel provide Sanderson with copies of unpublished cases cited in the decision. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal.