Fredin v. Miller

Background

The order addresses Brock Fredin’s motion to disqualify Judge Susan Richard Nelson under 28 U.S.C. § 455 in three cases. Fredin represented himself. The motion followed the court’s November 23, 2020 sanctions order, which found that Fredin had created websites and videos in bad faith to harass and intimidate defense counsel and a magistrate judge. The sanction included an injunction requiring Fredin to remove the websites and videos, along with a warning that noncompliance could lead to further penalties.

Fredin’s arguments

Fredin argued that Judge Nelson’s previous relationship with Robins Kaplan, the law firm representing Defendant Jamie Kreil, created an interest requiring disqualification. He asserted that the court was interested in protecting and representing the firm and its attorneys. He also argued that the judge had previously worked with and mentored one of Kreil’s attorneys. The opinion states that Fredin pointed to the court’s rulings in Kreil’s favor as evidence of partiality.

Legal standard and analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a judge must disqualify herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The test is objective: the question is whether a reasonable person who knew the circumstances would question the judge’s impartiality. The party seeking disqualification has a substantial burden, and the judge is presumed to be impartial.

The court found that Fredin did not meet that burden. Judge Nelson had joined Robins, Kaplan, Miller, and Ciresi, now Robins Kaplan, in 1984, and had left the firm in 2000 to take the federal bench. She therefore had no financial stake in the firm after 2000. The court also found that her time at the firm did not overlap with the time of Kreil’s attorney, contrary to Fredin’s assertion. As a result, the court found no financial or personal interest that would cause a reasonable person to question its impartiality. It further held that an unfavorable ruling, without a clear showing of bias or partiality, is not enough to require disqualification.

Ruling

Judge Susan Richard Nelson concluded that neither § 455 nor the judicial conduct code required disqualification and denied Fredin’s Motion to Disqualify. Some defendants had requested $5,000 in attorney fees for responding to the motion. The court declined to depart from the usual rule that each side pays its own fees for that motion, although it warned that it might consider awarding fees for future bad-faith motion practice.