Jones v. Johnson
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-07944
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Jones v. Johnson, Judge Chen denied Jones’s motion seeking reasons for Judge Koh’s recusal.
Charles B. Jones’s request for an explanation of Judge Koh’s recusal was denied; the order did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
Charles B. Jones asked the court for an explanation of why Judge Koh disqualified herself from the case.
The opinion says judges generally do not have to explain their recusals, and Judge Koh had issued only one order: the order recusing herself.
Judge Edward M. Chen denied Jones’s motion and declined to ask Judge Koh for an explanation.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Johnson · No. 3:19-cv-07944
- Edward Chen
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
Petitioner Charles B. Jones filed a motion asking for a statement of reasons why Judge Koh disqualified herself from the action. The opinion identifies Judge Koh’s recusal as her only order in the case.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that judges are not required to provide reasons for recusal and typically do not create a record when they recuse themselves on their own initiative. Judge Chen concluded that Judge Koh was not required to explain her decision and that he would not request an explanation from her.
Disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen denied Jones’s motion for a statement of reasons. The order does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.