Washington v. United States of America
- Jon Tigar
- 4:23-cv-00447
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Washington v. United States, Judge Seeborg denied Washington’s motion to recuse Judge Tigar because his bias allegations were speculative and unsupported.
The ruling affected Jason Levette Washington’s request to remove Judge Jon S. Tigar from the case; the request was denied.
What happened
Jason Levette Washington asked to remove Judge Jon S. Tigar from the case, claiming that Judge Tigar was biased, disregarded evidence, had a close relationship with an unspecified defendant, and was politically biased. The case is Washington v. United States of America.
The court explained that federal law allows recusal when a judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. It found that Washington did not identify specific examples of bias, disregarded evidence, a defendant involved in the alleged relationship, or facts supporting his political-bias claim.
Judge Richard Seeborg ruled that Washington’s claims were conclusory, speculative, and unsupported. The court denied the motion for recusal under both cited statutes.
The detailed version
- Washington v. United States of America · No. 4:23-cv-00447
- Jon Tigar
- Oct. 30, 2023
Background
Jason Levette Washington moved to recuse, or remove, Judge Jon S. Tigar from the action. Washington alleged that Judge Tigar had shown unreasonable bias or prejudice against him, disregarded important evidence, had a close professional relationship with an unspecified defendant that could affect his impartiality, and was politically biased.
Legal standard
The court considered 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 144 addresses recusal based on a party’s timely and sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice. Section 455 requires recusal when a 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: whether a reasonable person who knew all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judges are presumed impartial, and speculative claims of bias do not require recusal.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Washington did not identify any specific instances of bias or examples of evidence that Judge Tigar allegedly disregarded. It also found that Washington did not identify the defendant involved in the alleged relationship or provide facts showing bias or prejudice. The court explained that unsupported assertions about a relationship are insufficient, and noted that a prior Ninth Circuit decision did not require recusal based solely on a presiding judge’s friendship with a defendant.
The court likewise found that Washington did not explain the alleged political bias or support it with evidence. References to exhibits that supposedly showed political preference, without explaining how particular exhibits did so, were insufficient.
Disposition
The court concluded that none of Washington’s claims was sufficiently supported to make a reasonable person doubt Judge Tigar’s impartiality. Judge Richard Seeborg held that recusal was not warranted under either § 144 or § 455 and denied the motion for recusal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.