Johnson v. Barr

Background

Kirstin Johnson sued the City and County of San Francisco and others over an incident involving San Francisco Police Department officers in January 2019. Johnson sued for herself and as guardian ad litem, meaning a court-appointed representative, for her minor children. Her husband was also a plaintiff. The case was removed from California state court because it raised federal questions, and the parties consented to proceedings before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.

During a dispute about a protective order, defendants produced videos showing the minor children and sought to label the child-related portions confidential. The plaintiffs objected and apparently wanted the videos to be publicly available. Judge Kim ordered confidentiality for portions showing the children, citing the risk of embarrassment or harm. She noted that she had not viewed all of the footage and allowed for possible revisions to the confidentiality designations later. She also said that the parents’ failure to protect the children from possible harm was disturbing and described the guardian ad litem’s duty to protect the children’s interests.

Disqualification request

The plaintiffs moved under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 to disqualify Judge Kim. They argued that her remarks showed actual bias or created an appearance of bias. They said they felt insulted, believed Judge Kim had effectively called Johnson a bad mother, and viewed her failure to watch all of the videos as evidence of favoritism toward defendants and antagonism toward plaintiffs.

Judge Kim referred the motion to another judge and deferred further rulings. The motion was assigned to the district judge handling general matters, who decided it without a hearing.

Legal standard

The court explained that both statutes use an objective test: whether a reasonable person who knew all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The relevant observer is a well-informed and thoughtful person, not someone unusually suspicious or sensitive. A judge also has a duty to continue hearing a case when the law and facts do not provide a legitimate reason for recusal.

Ruling

Judge Donato denied disqualification. He acknowledged that it was regrettable that the plaintiffs felt insulted, but concluded that no reasonable person would find actual bias or an appearance of bias in Judge Kim’s remarks. The court viewed the comments as expressing concern about safeguarding the minor plaintiffs’ interests, a responsibility shared by the judge and the guardian ad litem.

The court also rejected the argument based on Judge Kim’s failure to view the entire video. Judge Kim had expressly left open the possibility of revising the confidentiality designations in later proceedings, so the court found that the plaintiffs had not been irreversibly harmed by the initial order. The plaintiffs did not assert other grounds, such as evidence outside the case showing a deep-seated or preexisting bias. The motion was therefore denied.