Webb v. Zampedri et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 5 Motion to Disqualify Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 5/12/2016. (blh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
David Webb,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:16-CV-00021 DB BCW
Zampedri, et al.
District Judge Dee Benson
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
Pro Se Plaintiff David Webb (“Plaintiff”), proceeding in forma pauperis filed a
Complaint in this case on February 29, 2016. 1 District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 2 Before the Court is
Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells. 3 For the reasons
stated below, disqualification or recusal would be improper, and the motion is DENIED.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge is required to disqualify oneself “in any proceeding in
which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 4 or “where he [or she] has a
personal bias or prejudice concerning a party . . .” 5 “There is as much obligation for a judge not
to recuse when there is no occasion for him [or her] to do so as there is for him [or her] to do so
1
Docket no. 2.
2
Docket no. 4.
3
Docket no. 5.
4
28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
5
Id. at § 455(b)(1).
1
when there is.” 6 The Court applies an objective standard, which is “whether a reasonable person,
knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” 7
Mr. Webb alleges bias by Judge Wells’ law clerk. He argues that the week of April 4,
2016, he discovered that an amended pleading “had been intentionally withheld from being
docketed by the Clerk’s Office Personnel” at the direction of Judge Wells’ “Career Law Clerk.” 8
Mr. Webb argues that because the law clerk “is the sole Law Clerk for Chief U.S. Magistrate
Judge Brooke C. Wells and any pleadings legally analyzed by Chief Magistrate Judge Wells[’]
Chambers would be done by Attorney Willey and thereby creating a conflict of Interest
prejudicial to Pro Se Plaintiff Webb.” 9 He further argues that even if actual impartiality does not
exist “there can be no doubt that a reasonable person looking at the Totality of the circumstances
would harbor doubts about the Court’s Impartiality . . .” 10
The statute provides for recusal when there is “personal bias or prejudice” concerning a
party. Considering the statute, even if Mr. Webb’s allegations were factually true, it would not
warrant recusal. 11 This is because generally “a law clerk’s views cannot be attributed to the
judge for whom the clerk works.” 12 A judge should not be disqualified “because of actions and
6
Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937, 939 (10th Cir. 1987).
7
U.S. v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
8
Docket no. 10 at 2.
9
Id.
10
Id. at 3.
11
Doe v. Cabrera, No. 14-1005, 2015 WL 5727127, *6 (D. D. C. Sept. 30, 2015) (holding that
law clerk’s bias cannot be imputed to the judge) (unpublished decision).
12
In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 614 F.2d 958, 968 (5th Cir. 1980)
2
statements attributed to his [or her] law clerk.” 13 There are some limited exceptions to the
generally rule above, but none apply to the facts here. 14
Moreover, there is no appearance of partiality. Even if Judge Wells’ law clerk were
responsible for a few days delay in docketing Mr. Webb’s supplement to his amended complaint,
the pleading is docketed now and the delay resulted in no harm or overall delay to the case.
However, to be clear, despite Mr. Webb’s allegations otherwise, the law clerk Mr. Webb calls
out by name in his Motion has had no substantive involvement in this case, is not Judge Wells’
sole law clerk, and is not screening (and has not screened) Mr. Webb’s Complaints in either case
currently pending in front of Judge Wells. In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, these
are not the circumstances where a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would
harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality. It is hereby ORDERED that, for the reasons stated
above, Mr. Webb’s Motion to Disqualify15 is DENIED.
DATED this 12 May 2016.
Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge
13
Id.
14
See, e.g., Hall v. Small Bus. Admin., 695 F.2d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1983) (disqualification
warranted where law clerk substantively worked on class action alleging discrimination against
an employer where law clerk previously worked for the defendant employer and had resigned
because of discrimination, where law clerk was a member of the class, and had accepted
employment with plaintiff’s counsel); Vaska v. State, 955 P.2d 943, 946 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998)
(disqualification warranted where law clerk substantively assisted in case involving local district
attorney’s office when law clerk was having a sexual relationship with another attorney in the
district attorney’s office).
15
Docket no. 5.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?