Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-cv-00073-MSK-PAC.
December 6, 2005
ORDER
The matter before the court is plaintiff's Motion for Recusal [filed November 22, 2005]. The motion has been referred to the undersigned for disposition.
Plaintiff asks the undersigned to recuse from this action based on what plaintiff characterizes as numerous erroneous rulings. Plaintiff does not allege any other grounds for recusal.
The standards for recusal are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The statute provides that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Subsection (b)(1) further provides for mandatory recusal where the judge "has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts."
The pertinent issue is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would have doubts about the judge's impartiality. United States v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243, 1277 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993). The inquiry is an objective one and is limited to "outward manifestations and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom." Cooley, 1 F.3d at 993. The judge's actual state of mind is not relevant. Cooley, 1 F.3d at 993.
"Ordinarily, when a judge's words or actions are motivated by events originating within the context of judicial proceedings, they are insulated from charges of bias." United States v. Nickl, 427 F.3d 1286, 1298 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994)). Thus, adverse legal rulings alone are not grounds for recusal. Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1305 (10th Cir. 1997); Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1268 (10th Cir. 1988).
Because plaintiff has not set forth sufficient grounds for the undersigned to recuse from this case, it is
HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Recusal [filed November 22, 2005] is DENIED.