Ng v. Russell
- 3:18-cv-00763
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ng v. Russell, the court denied Ng’s motion to disqualify the judge, finding his bias allegations too conclusory.
Charles Chitat Ng’s request to remove the presiding judge; the order also directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions.
What happened
In Charles Chitat Ng v. J. Russell, et al., Ng asked for the judge to be replaced, asserting that the judge had shown bias against him. Ng did not identify specific facts supporting that assertion.
The court explained that federal law requires recusal when a judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned or the judge has personal bias or prejudice. It denied Ng’s motion because his conclusory allegations did not provide facts or reasons that would meet that standard.
The court also directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.
The detailed version
- Ng v. Russell · No. 3:18-cv-00763
- July 14, 2022
Background
Charles Chitat Ng moved to disqualify the judge presiding over his suit. Ng stated that the judge had demonstrated bias against him and asked that the case be reassigned. The motion did not make specific allegations or identify particular facts supporting the claimed bias.
Legal standard
The court discussed two federal recusal statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 144 addresses a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging that the judge has personal bias or prejudice. 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.
The court stated that the substantive test is the same under both statutes: recusal is appropriate when a reasonable person who knows all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Ruling
The court denied Ng’s motion to disqualify. It held that Ng’s conclusory allegations did not provide facts or reasons from which a reasonable person would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or that the judge otherwise had bias or prejudice.
The court also ordered the Clerk to terminate all pending motions. The supplied opinion text does not identify the judge by name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.