Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:21-cv-08431
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mogan v. Sacks, Judge Hixson denied Michael Mogan’s motion to recuse him because prior adverse rulings did not establish bias.
Michael Mogan, whose motion seeking the judge’s recusal was denied.
What happened
Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP involved Michael Mogan’s request that the judge step aside. Mogan argued that the judge’s earlier rulings showed a lack of impartiality, bias, and prejudice.
The court explained that federal law requires a sufficient basis to question a judge’s impartiality, and that alleged bias ordinarily must come from outside the judicial proceedings. A judge’s previous ruling against a party, by itself, does not establish bias. The court also said that disagreements with its orders could be raised on appeal.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Mogan’s motion for recusal.
The detailed version
- Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP · No. 3:21-cv-08431
- Thomas Hixson
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
Michael Mogan moved to recuse, or disqualify, the undersigned judge. Mogan based the motion on alleged lack of impartiality, bias, and prejudice that he said were shown by the judge’s previous rulings.
Legal standard
The court discussed two federal recusal statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 144 requires a party seeking recusal to submit a timely and sufficient affidavit stating that the judge has personal bias or prejudice against the party or in favor of an opposing party, along with the facts and reasons supporting that belief. Section 455 requires disqualification when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidence.
The court explained that alleged bias ordinarily must come from an outside source rather than from the judge’s actions in the case. It relied on the principle that a judge’s previous adverse ruling, by itself, is not enough to show bias.
Ruling
The court held that Mogan’s motion failed as a matter of law because he had not established a basis on which the court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court stated that disagreements with its orders and their substance should be addressed by appealing those orders to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson therefore denied Mogan’s motion for recusal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.