Opinion
CR-21-02308-001-TUC-DWL
03-24-2022
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Ted Earl Severeid, III, Defendant.
ORDER
DOMINIC W. LANZA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In Count One of the indictment, Defendant is charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) and (b)(4) by “threaten[ing] to assault Person A, a United States Judge, with intent to impede, intimidate, and interfere with such judge while engaged in the performance of official duties, and with intent to retaliate against such judge on account of the performance of official duties.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) The crime is alleged to have occurred “in the District of Arizona.” (Id.)
The Court has sua sponte considered the factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 455 and concludes that recusal is unnecessary in this case. Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Central Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 2005) (where the defendant was “charged . . . with making threats with intent to extort, assault, murder, or to inflict harm upon three federal district court judges from the Central District of California” but there was no allegation that the defendant made threats “toward the assigned judge or the entire bench, ” concluding that “[t]he district court correctly held that mandatory disqualification of all judges on the Central District of California was not justified under § 455(a)”). This determination is without prejudice to any party's ability to file a motion for appropriate relief should that party disagree with the Court's assessment.