Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Background

Tatyana Drevaleva, who was representing herself, moved to disqualify the magistrate judge assigned to her case. She identified no reason other than dissatisfaction with the court’s rulings on her motions and its scheduling decisions. She also speculated that the court wanted to intentionally and maliciously prolong the case.

Legal standard

The court assumed that Drevaleva’s motion relied on 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, which address judicial disqualification. Under those provisions, disqualification may be required when a judge has personal bias or prejudice, or when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A request under § 144 generally must include a legally sufficient affidavit specifically alleging facts showing bias from an outside source, rather than relying on the judge’s conduct or rulings in the case. Judicial opinions formed from events in the current or earlier proceedings ordinarily do not establish bias unless they show deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.

Analysis

The court found Drevaleva’s motion and declaration legally insufficient because they offered no facts suggesting bias from an outside source. They relied only on the court’s decisions in the case, with which Drevaleva disagreed. The court stated that disagreement with judicial decisions is not evidence of bias or a basis for disqualification. Because the motion was legally insufficient, the court concluded that it did not need to refer it to another judge.

The court separately considered whether § 455 required disqualification. It found no deep-seated favoritism or antagonism and no circumstances that would cause the court’s impartiality to reasonably be questioned.

Disposition

The court found no basis to refer Drevaleva’s motion to another judge and denied the motion to disqualify. The provided opinion text does not clearly identify the magistrate judge by name; its signature is not legible in the supplied text.