Khan v. Madsen

Background

Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After receiving an extension of time, he filed amended complaints on January 19 and January 22, 2024. He later filed an administrative motion to update an exhibit supporting his amended complaint.

Khan also filed a submission asking Judge Freeman to disqualify herself. The court treated that submission as a motion for recusal, meaning a request that the judge step aside because of alleged bias or a possible conflict. Khan asserted that Judge Freeman was biased against him, had delayed screening his case, might favor a woman accusing a man of indecency, had ruled against male defendants in criminal sex-offense cases, and had caused his cases to be assigned to her. He did not identify a specific case supporting some of these allegations.

Recusal standard and analysis

The court stated that the standards under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 are the same: whether a reasonable, well-informed person would believe that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or that there is a significant risk the case would be decided on a basis other than its merits. The court also stated that a federal judge is presumed to be impartial and that the person seeking recusal bears a substantial burden to overcome that presumption.

The court found that there had been no undue delay in screening Khan’s complaint, noting that Khan had filed multiple recent documents, including two amended complaints and the exhibit-update motion. The court characterized his concern that Judge Freeman would act with prejudice as speculative and based on an unsupported accusation of gender bias. It also found his assertion about rulings against male criminal defendants conclusory and unsupported.

Regarding case assignments, the court explained that the Clerk assigns cases under the court’s assignment plan and that the local rules restrict changes to assignments except as provided by those rules. The court concluded that Khan had not shown a basis for recusal.

Rulings

The court denied Khan’s motion for recusal. The opinion states that Khan may appeal that decision to the Ninth Circuit.

The court granted Khan’s administrative motion to update one exhibit. It stated that it would screen the “final” amended complaint filed at Docket No. 11 in due course.

The court also directed the Clerk to strike the amended complaint filed at Docket No. 10 because it had been superseded by the later filing at Docket No. 11. The order terminated Docket Nos. 12 and 13. It did not decide the merits of Khan’s underlying civil-rights claims.