Bal v. U.S. Department of the Treasury

Background

John Bal, who was representing himself, filed a letter motion asking United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang to recuse herself from the case. Bal claimed that Judge Wang favored the defendants and their counsel, the U.S. Department of Justice, to his detriment.

Bal identified several reasons for his request. He disagreed with the court’s treatment of his claims, its statement that Defendant Charles Bishop acted pursuant to Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations, its handling of his default-judgment and discovery requests, its scheduling of summary-judgment briefing, and its reference to Bishop’s statement that Bal was a “Sanctions Target.”

The opinion notes that the court had previously dismissed Bal’s Fifth Amendment claim against Bishop and most of his Freedom of Information Act claims, leaving claims concerning redactions in records produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The court had also denied Bal’s motions for civil contempt and default judgment. Bal’s motion for reconsideration of an earlier order remained pending, and the defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment.

Recusal standard

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned and identifies specific circumstances requiring disqualification, including personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The court explained that prior adverse rulings, by themselves, ordinarily do not provide a reasonable basis to question a judge’s impartiality.

A judicial ruling may support recusal if it relies on information from outside the case or shows deep-seated favoritism or hostility that would make fair judgment impossible. The court found that Bal’s assertions were disagreements with prior rulings, including rulings that were the subject of pending reconsideration motions. Bal did not show that any ruling relied on an outside source or demonstrated favoritism or hostility toward him.

The court also noted that it had granted Bal several deadline extensions and allowed him to file a reconsideration motion that he acknowledged was late. The court stated that dissatisfaction with its rulings could be addressed through an appeal after a final decision, but did not justify recusal.

Disposition

The court denied Bal’s motion for recusal. The briefing deadlines remained in effect, and the clerk was directed to close the motion identified as ECF 102.