O'Connor v. Bassoff et al.

Filing 63

MINUTE ORDER denying 61 Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Watanabe, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/02/2016.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02121-MJW
ANDREW J. O’CONNOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOBEY BASSOFF,
JOLENE RADOSTIS,
RICK KELLOGG,
ROBBYN FERNANDEZ,
BRUCE MESSINGER,
RYAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, and
BOULDER VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. RE2,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse Magistrate Watanabe
(Docket No. 61) is DENIED for the following reasons.
As recently stated by District Judge Raymond P. Moore:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), any justice, judge, or magistrate of the
United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The purpose of § 455(a) is to
promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process and to
avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Similarly, under § 455(b)(1), a
judge or magistrate judge should also be disqualified if he has a personal
bias or prejudice concerning a party.
A judge has a continuing duty to recuse before, during, or, in some
circumstances, after a proceeding, if the judge concludes that sufficient
factual grounds exist to cause an objective observer reasonably to
question the judge's impartiality. The issue is whether a reasonable
person, knowing all of the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the
judge’s impartiality. The standard is purely objective. The statute is not
intended to give litigants a veto power over sitting judges, or a vehicle for
obtaining a judge of their choice. The decision to recuse is committed to

the sound discretion of the district court.
Jemaneh v. Univ. of Wyoming, No. 12-CV-02383-RM-MJW, 2014 WL 1813169, at *1-2
(D. Colo. May 6, 2014) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
In his motion, Plaintiff sets forth the factual allegations as to the merits of his
claim but identifies no grounds for recusal. He makes only two statements that could be
considered grounds for this motion.
First, after setting forth the procedural background of Judge Babcock
“erroneously” denying several of Plaintiff’s motions, Plaintiff notes that in denying the
motion yet again, the undersigned “inexplicably, inanely and inappropriately” warned
Plaintiff that “further efforts to file the same motion without any material change in the
circumstances will likely lead to sanctions, including monetary sanction.” (Docket No.
61, pp. 7-8.) Plaintiff makes no effort to explain the inanity he perceives in this
statement.
Second, Plaintiff states:
Evidently, Magistrate Watanabe does not believe in the First Amendment
and does not like people that represent themselves in his Court without
paying attorney. Magistrate Watanabe has demonstrated bias against
Plaintiff at every turn in this litigation and must recuse himself because
there is more than the appearance of impropriety. Magistrate Watanabe
has been far from fair and impartial and in fact, has been abusive and
hostile toward Plaintiff and Plaintiff cannot receive a fair resolution of his
claims if Magistrate Watanabe remains in this case.
(Docket No. 61, p.10.) Again, there are no non-conclusory arguments here; no specific
facts have been provided to show the bias, abusiveness, or hostility – other than the
afore-mentioned warning, which Plaintiff evidently disagrees with.
Without some explanation as to why that warning was “inexplicably, inanely and
inappropriately” made, the Court sees no grounds for concluding that has created the
appearance of bias. The motion to recuse is denied.
Date: February 2, 2016