Bates v. City of San Jose, 5:06-cv-05302

Bates, a retired San Jose police sergeant, sued the City and officers in 2006 alleging constitutional violations relating to delay in issuing a concealed‑carry permit; district court granted summary judgment for defendants in 2008, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 2009.
Bates filed multiple postjudgment Rule 60 motions (2013, 2013, and the instant third motion in 2016) challenging prior rulings, alleging attorney misconduct and fraud; earlier Rule 60 motions were denied and appeals were unsuccessful.
The instant filings (May–June 2016) included a third Rule 60 motion and a motion seeking recusal of the district judge; defendants opposed and Bates replied.
Bates raised alleged bases for recusal: a 2007 magistrate minute entry after a settlement conference, prior adverse rulings by the judge, and alleged ex parte contacts between court officials and defense counsel.
On the Rule 60 merits Bates repeated prior arguments: (1) alleged collusion by his former counsel to dismiss defendant Younis without consent, (2) the court’s denial of his first Rule 60 motion was improperly based on his absence at a hearing, and (3) the 2008 summary judgment wrongly gave preclusive effect to a state court judgment.
The court denied both motions, concluding recusal was unsupported and the Rule 60 motion was barred by law‑of‑the‑case and repeated previously rejected arguments; the court ordered no further filings in the closed case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)	Minute entry from 2007, prior adverse rulings, and alleged ex parte contacts show bias	No evidence of bias; rulings and an ambiguous minute entry do not warrant recusal	Denied — objective standard not met; allegations speculative or relate to judicial rulings which normally do not require recusal
Validity of third Rule 60 motion (procedural posture)	Styles motion as an independent equitable action under Rule 60(d)(1)	Motion repeats prior Rule 60 arguments and is not a new independent action	Denied — substantively identical to prior motions; not an independent action
Collusion/fraud by former counsel re: dismissal of Younis	Former counsel colluded with defense to stipulate dismissal without Bates' consent	Issue previously litigated and rejected; no new, persuasive evidence	Denied — matter already addressed in prior Rule 60 proceedings and appeals
Alleged errors in summary judgment and claim preclusion	Summary judgment improperly gave preclusive effect to state court judgment	Court and Ninth Circuit already considered and rejected these arguments	Denied — barred by law of the case and previously adjudicated

Herrington v. Sonoma Cnty., 834 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1987) (objective test for appearance of judicial bias)
United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315 (9th Cir. 1983) (standards for apparent bias)
United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable‑person standard and limits on recusal based on speculation)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings ordinarily do not warrant recusal; rare extrajudicial bias exceptions)
Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921) (historical example of pervasive judicial bias)
Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2012) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine explained)