Palma v. U.S.

2 Citing cases

  1. Matios v. City of Loveland

    CIVIL 21-cv-02194-PAB-NRN (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Other courts in this district have extended the Tenth Circuit's reasoning to find that a party's “potentially frivolous” attempt to name the judge as a party “apparently for the sole purpose of forcing recusal” “does not amount to a circumstance in which a reasonable person, with full knowledge of the circumstances, would have cause to question the undersigned's impartiality with respect to the allegations in this case.” Smith v. Bender, No. 07-cv-01924-MSK-KMT, 2008 WL 2751346, at *5 (D. Colo. July 11, 2008) (emphasis omitted). This holding is consistent with prevailing ethical guidance that a judge “need not recuse from a case involving a party that filed suit against the judge, where judicial immunity will be a complete defense to the action against the judge.” Committee on Codes of Conduct, Compendium of Selected Ethics Opinions § 3.6-7; see also Palma v. United States, 2008 WL 4861707, at *1 (D.N.M. July 31, 2008) (this guidance is supported by a policy which “prevents any party, who does not like a ruling issued by a judge, from suing the judge and being able to have their case reheard by a different judge.”)

  2. Ware v. United States

    05-cr-1115 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Because there is no legitimate basis for Ware's claims against the Court, recusal is not warranted. See Palma v. United States, No. 08-cv-0457, 2008 WL 4861707, at *4 (D.N.M. July 31, 2008) (discussing recusal and judicial immunity in detail and holding that there was no need for a judge to recuse himself from a habeas action in which he was improperly named as a respondent and the judge was afforded judicial immunity for actions taken in the petitioner's criminal case).