Kamerer v. Newsom

Background

Nichele Kamerer, formerly known as Anna Schasker, sued California Governor Gavin Newsom and the Napa County Fire Department. She alleged that the defendants infringed copyrights in three documents concerning her proposed environmental policies: the “Technology Challenge Speech,” “The Howard Kamerer [Plan],” and “The Howard Kamerer [Plan] #2.”

Judge Susan van Keulen granted Kamerer permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened the initial complaint, determining that it did not state a claim for relief. Judge van Keulen later screened the first amended complaint and again found that it failed to state a claim. After several amended filings created uncertainty about which complaint was operative, Judge van Keulen ordered Kamerer to file a third amended complaint. Kamerer filed that complaint and, on the same day, moved to disqualify Judge van Keulen under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and § 455(b)(1). Judge van Keulen referred the disqualification motion to another judge, and the case was assigned to Judge Beth Labson Freeman.

Legal standard

Under Section 455, a judge must disqualify herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Disqualification is also required when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed facts. The court applied an objective test: whether a reasonable person who knew all the facts would reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The party seeking disqualification bears a substantial burden to show bias.

Kamerer’s allegations

Kamerer argued that Judge van Keulen should be disqualified because she allegedly violated Kamerer’s due-process rights, called Kamerer a prisoner and delusional, stated that Governor Newsom was immune from suit, was personally biased, and wanted Kamerer to abandon the case. Kamerer attached a state bar complaint form and annotated copies of several of Judge van Keulen’s orders. Kamerer also suggested in an email that Governor Newsom had paid Judge van Keulen, but the opinion states that this allegation was speculation.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would have no basis to question Judge van Keulen’s impartiality. The court understood Kamerer’s arguments to challenge Judge van Keulen’s earlier dismissals of the initial and first amended complaints. It explained that a judge’s conduct during a case generally is not enough by itself to require disqualification, except in the rarest circumstances.

The court also found no factual basis for Kamerer’s specific allegations. Its review of the docket showed that Judge van Keulen had not referred to Kamerer as a prisoner or delusional and had not said that Kamerer should drop the case. The court found no evidence supporting the allegation that Newsom paid Judge van Keulen and stated that speculation alone was insufficient.

Disposition

The court held that Kamerer did not meet her burden to show that Judge van Keulen was biased or prejudiced, or that her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court therefore DENIED Kamerer’s motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge van Keulen.