recusal proper where judge in a bench trial sat on the board of trustees of a party negotiating with one of the litigants over property, the ownership of which was at issue in the bench trial
How later courts described this case
- recusal proper where judge in a bench trial sat on the board of trustees of a party negotiating with one of the litigants over property, the ownership of which was at issue in the bench trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ZIYAO JIANG, :
Plaintiff, :
v. : Case No. 3:23-cv-306-KRG-KAP
JOHNSTOWN DISTRICT LIBRARY :
CENTER, GREATER JOHNSTOWN :
WATER AUTHORITY, LOWER YODER §:
TOWNSHIP, JOHNSTOWN POLICE :
DEPARTMENT, and ANNA ELIZABETH :
FU, :
Defendants :
Memorandum Order
Plaintiffs motion for my recusal, ECF no. 12, based on the suggestion that because
Johnstown (where the division’s court is located) is so small I might use services provided
by one or more defendants (presumably the library, water authority, or police
department) is denied. Use of services is too remote to constitute a substantial interest or
financial interest triggering mandatory recusal under 28 U.S.C.8 455(b)(4). See In re
Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 539 F.2d 357, 368 (4th Cir. 1976)(vacating the recusal of a
judge who was a customer of a utility company, the rates of which might be affected by
the outcome of the pending litigation, on the grounds that the interest was not a financial
interest and in determining whether it was otherwise a substantial interest the judge
“must necessarily consider the remoteness of the interest and its extent or degree.”)
Recusal motions under the appearance of impropriety subsection, 28 U.S.C.§
455(a), should identify “facts that might reasonably cause an objective observer to
question [the presiding judge’s] impartiality.” See Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition
Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865 (1988)(recusal proper where judge in a bench trial sat on the
board of trustees of a party negotiating with one of the litigants over property, the
ownership of which was at issue in the bench trial); Clemmons v. Wolfe, 377 F.3d 322,
326 (3d Cir.2004)(recusal from habeas proceedings required of a judge who before taking
the federal bench presided over the state court criminal proceedings). Recusal based on
an innuendo of hometown bias is not sufficient.
Ose
DATE:_ April 22, 2024
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice by U.S. Mail to:
Ziyao Jiang
4658 157th Street
Flushing, NY 11355
2