Fredin v. Kreil

Background

The court considered Brock Fredin’s motion to disqualify Judge Susan Richard Nelson under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The motion was filed in three cases involving Fredin: Case Nos. 17-cv-03058, 18-cv-00466, and 20-cv-01929.

Before seeking disqualification, Fredin had been sanctioned for posting websites and videos that the court found were created 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.

Fredin’s Arguments

Fredin argued primarily that Judge Nelson had a prior relationship with Robins Kaplan, the law firm representing Defendant Jamie Kreil. He asserted that the court was an interested party because it was interested in protecting and representing the firm and its attorneys. Fredin also argued that disqualification was required because Judge Nelson had previously worked with and mentored one of Kreil’s attorneys. He pointed to rulings in Kreil’s favor as evidence of partiality.

Legal Standard

Section 455 requires a federal judge to disqualify herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The test is objective: disqualification is required if a reasonable person who knew the circumstances would question the judge’s impartiality, even without proof of actual bias. The court stated that a party seeking disqualification carries a heavy burden because judges are presumed to be impartial.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court found that Fredin did not meet that burden. Judge Nelson explained that she had joined Robins, Kaplan, Miller, and Ciresi—now Robins Kaplan—in 1984 and left the firm in 2000 to become a federal judge. She therefore had no financial stake in the firm after 2000. The court also found that her tenure at the firm did not overlap with that of Kreil’s attorney, contrary to Fredin’s assertion.

The court concluded that it had neither a financial nor a personal interest that would cause a reasonable person to question its impartiality. It also held that an adverse ruling, without a clear showing of bias or partiality, is not enough to require disqualification. The court stated that neither Section 455 nor the judicial conduct code required disqualification and DENIED Fredin’s Motion to Disqualify.

Some defendants requested $5,000 in attorney fees for responding to the motion. The court declined to depart from the usual rule concerning attorney fees for that motion, but warned that it would strongly consider future fee requests if Fredin generated additional motion practice in bad faith.