Straw v. United States

12 Citing cases

  1. Toldsted v. Biden

    No. 21-12476 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2022)

    But that is not enough to require their recusal. See Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("There is no support whatsoever for the contention that a judge can be disqualified based simply on the identity of the President who appointed him."). The plaintiffs also request in their brief that a panel of senior judges review their claims, arguing that all the active judges have a conflict of interest because the suit involves the presidents who respectively appointed them.

  2. Tanasescu v. United States

    No. 2021-2117 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2021)

    The Claims Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of other federal courts. Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that the Claims Court does not have jurisdiction to review district court decisions); Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the "proper forum for appellants' challenges to the bankruptcy trustees' actions [which were approved by the bankruptcy court] . . . lies in the Ninth Circuit, not the Court of Federal Claims"). Creative claiming cannot endow the Claims Court with jurisdiction to review the decisions of other federal courts.

  3. Davis v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

    No. 23-3244 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 2024)

    Other circuits have rejected challenges to a judge's impartiality based on the appointing administration. See, e.g., Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("There is no support whatsoever for the contention that a judge can be disqualified based simply on the identity of the President who appointed him."); MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 138 F.3d 33, 38 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that appointment by a particular administration is not a ground for questioning a judge's impartiality). The D.C. Circuit denied recusal even when the appointing president was a party.

  4. Davis v. U.S. Dep't. of Justice

    No. 23-3244 (10th Cir. Aug. 1, 2024)   Cited 4 times

    Other circuits have rejected challenges to a judge's impartiality based on the appointing administration. See, e.g., Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("There is no support whatsoever for the contention that a judge can be disqualified based simply on the identity of the President who appointed him."); MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 138 F.3d 33, 38 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that appointment by a particular administration is not a ground for questioning a judge's impartiality). The D.C. Circuit denied recusal even when the appointing president was a party.

  5. Kelly v. United States

    No. 2022-1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2022)

    But if Ms. Kelly is asking this court or the Court of Federal Claims to review the district court's decision or its actions in that case, it is not within our or the Court of Federal Claims' jurisdiction to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (specifying areas of Federal Circuit jurisdiction); Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to review district court decisions). Conclusion

  6. Straw v. United States

    No. 2021-1597 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Mr. Straw has not satisfied the standards for removal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) ("[J]udicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases . . . support a bias or partiality challenge . . . if they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible."); see also Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he use of the term 'sly' is not 'insulting,' contrary to Mr. Straw's suggestion; it merely calls attention to the fact that Mr. Straw has sought to recast a tort claim as something that it manifestly is not-a case arising under the Takings Clause."). AFFIRMED.

  7. Straw v. United States

    No. 2021-1600 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Another of Mr. Straw's complaints to the Claims Court sought $6,000,000 for an alleged taking committed by a district court when it dismissed his tort claim premised on his alleged exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. Straw v. United States, No. 2021-1596, 2021 WL 2944400, at *1 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021). The Claims Court dismissed his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as it lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of district courts.

  8. Jackson v. Mich. Sec'y of State

    24-cv-11072 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2024)

    And Jackson's rendition encounters the same obstacle: “[t]here is no support whatsoever for the contention that a judge can be disqualified based simply on the identity of the President who appointed him.” Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1363 (Fed.Cir. 2021); see also Landingham v. DOJ, No. 22-3968, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 525, at *4 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024) (holding that judicial appointment by a specific president is “not enough to require” disqualification); Davis v. United States DOJ, No. 23-3244, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22159, at *9 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 2024)

  9. Jones v. Phila. Parking Auth.

    Civil Action 23-CV-4343 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2023)

    (citation omitted)); Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“There is no support whatsoever for the contention that a judge can be disqualified based simply on the identity of the President who appointed him.”)

  10. Markle v. Markle

    8:22-cv-511-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla. Jun. 21, 2022)

    President Obama's appointment of the undersigned, without more, does not serve as a basis for recusal. See, e.g., Straw v. United States, 4 F.4th 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“There is no support whatsoever for the contention that a judge can be disqualified based simply on the identity of the President who appointed [her].”); McKee v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 253 F.Supp.3d 78, 81 (D.D.C. 2017)