Carbajal et al v. Morrissey et al

Filing 342

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 04/18/2018, re: 334 Motion for Change of Judge Based on the Recent Discovery of Judge Philip Brimmer's Extrajudicial Bias is DENIED. (sphil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03231-PAB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW KEEFER, in his individual capacity,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer
This matter comes before me on Plaintiff Dean Carbajal’s Motion for Change of
Judge Based on the Recent Discovery of Judge Philip Brimmer’s Extrajudicial Bias
[Docket No. 334], wherein plaintiff seeks my recusal from this case. Plaintiff filed a
nearly identical motion in Carbajal v. Lucio et al., No. 10-cv-02862-PAB-KLM, Docket
No. 904, which I denied. Id., Docket No. 918. I will deny plaintiff’s present motion for
substantially the same reasons. Neither my acquaintance with members of the Denver
District Attorney’s Office nor the fact that plaintiff previously sued an attorney at the law
firm of Holland & Hart, where my sister is a partner, constitutes a ground for
disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455. See Carbajal v. Lucio et al., No. 10-cv02862-PAB-KLM, Docket No. 918 at 2-3, 6. First, “[j]udges are not required to recuse
when they have merely a casual relationship with a victim, attorney, witness, or litigant
appearing before the court; occupying the bench does not require withdrawal from
society.” Bragg v. Chavez, 2007 WL 5685116, at *3 (D.N.M. Nov. 9, 2007). Second,
plaintiff’s assertion that I am “set on excluding testimony from Morrissey and evidence
related to the abuses committed by these parties” pertains to my rulings in a different
case and is therefore irrelevant to the present motion. Docket No. 334 at 2; see also
Carbajal v. Lucio et al., No. 10-cv-02862-PAB-KLM, Docket No. 918 at 2-3 (discussing
reasons for denying plaintiff’s request for issuance of trial subpoena for Mr. Morrissey).
Third, Michael Carrigan, the attorney from Holland & Hart, was dismissed from this
lawsuit in 2014 by a different judge. See Docket No. 198. Accordingly, the fact that
plaintiff named Mr. Carrigan as a defendant in this action does not support plaintif f’s
claims of bias. Finally, plaintiff’s claim that I am biased against him because plaintiff’s
pending lawsuit against Holland & Hart in the Denver District Court will impact my
sister’s “financial interest and reputation,” see Docket No. 334 at 2-3, 8, amounts to
“unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation” and is thus is an insuf ficient
basis for recusal. Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937, 939 (10th Cir. 1987). For these

reasons, and the reasons stated in my prior order, Carbajal v. Lucio et al., No. 10-cv02862-PAB-KLM, Docket No. 918, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff Dean Carbajal’s Motion for Change of Judge Based on
the Recent Discovery of Judge Philip Brimmer’s Extrajudicial Bias [Docket No. 334] is
DENIED.
DATED April 18, 2018.

2