Malberg v. Cashen
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-01788
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Malberg v. Cashen, Judge Freeman denied Martin Malberg’s motion seeking her recusal because his supporting materials were legally insufficient.
Martin Malberg’s request to have Judge Beth Labson Freeman removed from the case was denied; Judge Freeman remained assigned to the matter.
What happened
In Malberg v. Cashen, Martin Malberg filed a “Notice of Conflict,” which the court treated as a request for Judge Beth Labson Freeman to step aside from the case. He supported the request with a declaration.
The court explained that recusal requires specific facts showing that bias from outside the case could prevent a fair decision. It found Malberg’s motion and declaration legally insufficient. The court also said that Malberg’s separate lawsuit involving a judge, apparently based on official actions in this case, did not require Judge Freeman to step aside, particularly because the other case was unrelated.
Judge Freeman denied Malberg’s motion for recusal. The order was entered on November 9, 2022.
The detailed version
- Malberg v. Cashen · No. 5:22-cv-01788
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 9, 2022
Background
Martin Malberg filed a document titled “Notice of Conflict.” The court construed it as a motion asking Judge Beth Labson Freeman to recuse herself, meaning to step aside from the case. Malberg attached a declaration explaining the basis for his request.
Legal standard
The court applied 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 permits recusal when a party submits a timely and sufficient affidavit showing personal bias or prejudice. Section 455 requires recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.
The court explained that the alleged bias generally must come from a source outside the judicial proceeding, rather than from the judge’s conduct or rulings in the case. A legally sufficient affidavit must state facts that, if true, fairly support an allegation that bias from an outside source may prevent a fair decision and that the facts provide substantial support for the allegation. Conclusions, opinions, rumors, and speculation are insufficient. Filing an affidavit or a complaint against a judge does not automatically require recusal.
Analysis
The court found Malberg’s motion and supporting declaration legally insufficient. It also concluded that the separate complaint Malberg had filed involving a judge did not require recusal. The court stated that the complaint appeared not to contain allegations directed at Judge Freeman. At most, Malberg might have been attempting to allege that she violated his constitutional rights by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss in this case.
The court further noted that the separate case was unrelated to any case assigned to Judge Freeman. Relying on the applicable recusal standards and judicial conduct guidance, the court concluded that a complaint against a judge based on the judge’s official actions does not automatically disqualify that judge from continuing to handle an earlier, unrelated matter involving the same litigant.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Malberg’s motion for recusal. The order does not decide the merits of Malberg’s underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.