In re: Gibson

Dist. Ct. denied defendants’ motion for recusal under 28 USC section 455(a), even though defendants alleged that Dist. Ct.’s daughter was employed at public interest entity, under circumstances where plaintiff’s law firm provided funds for same public interest entity and donated lawyer time to said entity for legal cases undertaken by entity. Defendants thereafter sought review of said denial via petition for writ of mandamus filed in Ct. of Appeals. Ct. of Appeals noted that mandamus petition had been traditional means to seek recusal of Dist. Ct. judge under section 455(a) after recusal motion had been denied by Dist. Ct., but that after Fowler, 829 F.3d 788 (2016), party can seek review of denial of recusal motion through appeal of final judgment. As to merits of recusal question, Ct. of Appeals found that there was no reasonable basis to question Dist. Ct.‘s impartiality with respect to its consideration of issues in underlying section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights arising out of plaintiff’s eventual acquittal in murder trial, where: (1) there was no evidence of judge shopping when underlying case was filed before different Dist. Ct. judge; (2) defendants made no suggestion of any apparent partiality when case was reassigned to instant Dist. Ct. judge; and (3) record showed that Dist. Ct.’s daughter has been screened from involvement in cases before instant Dist. Ct. judge. Ct. further rejected notion that daughter’s employment with public interest entity, by itself, created appearance of impropriety in eyes of objective observer. It also found that Dist. Ct.’s attendance at fundraiser for “Innocence Project” during which plaintiff in underlying lawsuit was cited did not require recusal of Dist. Ct. judge.