United States v. Hutt
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-01292
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In United States v. Hutt, Judge Donato denied Shu’s request to disqualify Judge Gilliam because the alleged bias was speculative.
Shu’s request to remove Judge Gilliam from this case and another action was denied; the order did not disqualify Judge Gilliam.
What happened
In United States v. Hutt, Shu, who was representing himself, asked to remove Judge Gilliam from this case and another case. Shu argued that Judge Gilliam’s earlier work as a federal prosecutor and law-firm partner created personal bias against him.
The court said the question was whether a reasonable, well-informed person would doubt Judge Gilliam’s impartiality. The record showed no earlier interactions between Shu and Judge Gilliam and no connection between Judge Gilliam’s prior work and Shu’s cases. The court also found no support for Shu’s claim that Judge Gilliam prevented him from getting legal help. Disagreement with a judge’s rulings generally is not a reason to remove the judge.
Judge Donato denied Shu’s disqualification request. The order says Judge Gilliam referred the request for reassignment under the district’s local rules, and the reassigned court decided it.
The detailed version
- United States v. Hutt · No. 4:21-cv-01292
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 19, 2021
Background
Pro se plaintiff Shu asked to disqualify Judge Haywood Gilliam under 28 U.S.C. § 455 from presiding over United States v. Hutt and another action, Case No. 20-cv-06537-HSG. A pro se party is one who represents himself or herself without a lawyer. Judge Gilliam referred the request for reassignment under the district’s local rules, and the reassigned court considered the request.
Legal standard
Section 455 requires disqualification when a reasonable person who knows all the facts would reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The court explained that this motion is ordinarily decided by the judge to whom it is directed and is entrusted to the court’s discretion. The reasonable-person test does not use a hypersensitive or unduly suspicious observer.
Reasons for the decision
Shu’s main argument was that Judge Gilliam’s prior employment as an assistant United States Attorney and as a law-firm partner created personal bias against him. The court found no record evidence that Judge Gilliam had interacted with Shu before these cases or had worked on matters related to the claims or evidence in Shu’s cases. Because the prior employment ended years earlier and had no connection to Shu’s litigation, the court found the claimed inference of partiality speculative.
The court also rejected Shu’s suggestion that Judge Gilliam had blocked him from obtaining assistance from the district’s pro se help center or a pro bono lawyer. The record did not indicate that Judge Gilliam hindered Shu from obtaining legal help. Finally, the court said Shu’s dissatisfaction with Judge Gilliam’s rulings, including alleged legal errors, was not a valid basis for disqualification. Such rulings may be challenged on appeal, but they generally do not establish judicial bias.
Disposition
Judge James Donato denied the request for judicial disqualification. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.