Malberg v. Cashen
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-04386
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Malberg v. Cashen: Judge Freeman denied Malberg’s recusal motion 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 the presiding judge.
What happened
In Martin Malberg v. Robert Cashen, et al., Martin Malberg asked the court to remove the judge from his case. He based the request on filing a separate federal lawsuit against the judge.
The court explained that recusal generally requires facts showing bias from outside the case, not simply disagreement with a judge’s actions or rulings. It found Malberg’s motion and declaration legally insufficient and said that filing another lawsuit alone did not require recusal.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Malberg’s motion for recusal. The court also noted that the separate lawsuit appeared not to contain allegations directed at the judge, or might have challenged the judge’s earlier dismissal ruling, and was unrelated to another case assigned to her.
The detailed version
- Malberg v. Cashen · No. 5:22-cv-04386
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 9, 2022
Background
Martin Malberg moved for recusal, meaning that he asked Judge Beth Labson Freeman to step aside from the case. His motion included a declaration explaining the basis for his request. The opinion states that Malberg relied on his filing of a separate federal action against the judge as the sole basis for recusal.
Legal standard
The court analyzed the motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 requires a timely and sufficient affidavit stating facts supporting a claim that the judge has 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, under both provisions, the alleged bias must arise from an outside source rather than from the judge’s conduct or rulings in the case. Conclusory statements, opinions, rumors, or speculation are not enough.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Malberg’s motion and declaration were legally insufficient. It relied on authority stating that a party’s act of filing a separate lawsuit against a judge does not automatically disqualify that judge from continuing to preside over the party’s case. The court also reviewed the separate complaint and stated that it appeared to contain no allegations directed at the judge. At most, Malberg might have been attempting to allege that the judge violated his constitutional rights by granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss in an earlier round of this case. The court further stated that the separate lawsuit was unrelated to any case assigned to Judge Freeman.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Malberg’s motion for recusal. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.