Wilson v. Wilson

Background

Michael Geary Wilson, proceeding without a lawyer, requested judicial disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455. He had sued his ex-wife, Jami Caroline Wilson, and her lawyers, among others, alleging a conspiracy involving custody of a daughter. While reviewing Wilson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, the court granted that status and dismissed the complaint for failure to allege a plausible claim, while allowing him to amend. Wilson then filed a first amended complaint.

Afterward, Wilson submitted a letter and declaration asking that the undersigned judge be disqualified. His request focused on an alleged conflict between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure deadlines and Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-3, which concerns the filing of opposition briefs. Wilson argued that the local rule’s references to when papers are “filed” and “served” could shorten the time available to respond. He also asserted that the judge and other judges had failed to recognize the alleged incompatibility and had intentionally deprived people of full and equal access to court and due process.

Court’s Analysis

The court first stated that Wilson could not identify a genuine practical problem with the local rule because, during the COVID-19 pandemic, he and other self-represented litigants had been given access to the court’s electronic filing system.

The court also explained that, even assuming for purposes of discussion that Wilson’s alleged rule incompatibility had merit, it would not establish the type of intolerable risk of bias that could require disqualification. The court said that the district’s local rules did not show that any judge had an impermissible interest.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(1), disqualification may be required when a reasonable, well-informed person would question the judge’s impartiality or when the judge has a personal bias or prejudice. The court found that Wilson’s claims about intentional deprivation of rights were unsupported speculation and did not satisfy those standards.

Disposition

The court denied Wilson’s request for judicial disqualification. Judge James Donato stated that a judge has a strong duty to continue sitting when there is no legitimate reason for recusal. This order addressed only the disqualification request; the opinion also states that Wilson’s appeal had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.