Breitling v. LNV Corporation, 3:15-cv-00703

Plaintiffs Samuel and Jo Ann Breitling filed a second motion to disqualify Judge Jane J. Boyle and to strike her prior orders as void.
Their first recusal motion was previously denied as alleging the judge’s personal and financial interest.
The new motion alleges (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over state claims and (2) the judge participated in a conspiracy to deprive the Breitlings of civil rights.
The conspiracy allegations name various public figures and attorneys and assert improper conduct (e.g., insider trading, collusion) without factual support.
The Breitlings sought referral of the recusal motion to another judge but did not file a new affidavit under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and already used their one allowed affidavit.
The court evaluated the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and denied recusal, finding the allegations insufficient to raise a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Boyle must recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)	Breitling: judge’s impartiality is questionable based on retention of jurisdiction and alleged conspiracy	Court: allegations are disagreements with rulings and unsupported, fanciful conspiracy claims that do not show extrajudicial bias	Denied — no reasonable person would doubt impartiality
Whether retention of jurisdiction over state claims requires recusal	Breitling: court entertained state claims while lacking jurisdiction, showing bias	Court: mere disagreement with rulings does not establish bias; jurisdictional rulings are not extrajudicial sources of prejudice	Denied — improper jurisdiction claim insufficient for recusal
Whether alleged conspiracy between judge and public figures supports recusal	Breitling: judge participated in a broad conspiracy to deprive civil rights	Court: allegations are conclusory, incredible, and frivolous, not support for recusal	Denied — allegations too speculative and implausible
Whether the motion must be referred to another judge under 28 U.S.C. § 144	Breitling: requested referral to another judge	Court: no new adequate affidavit filed; only one affidavit permitted and theirs was already used	Denied — referral not required absent a proper § 144 affidavit

In re Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 121 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 1997) (recusal under § 455(a) is discretionary despite mandatory language)
Chitimacha Tribe of La. v. Harry L. Laws Co., 690 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1982) (reasonable-person standard for questioning a judge’s impartiality)
In re Billedeaux, 972 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1992) (remote or speculative interests do not mandate recusal)
In re Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 861 F.2d 1307 (2d Cir. 1988) (clarifies limits on interests that reasonably question impartiality)
United States v. Clark, 605 F.2d 939 (5th Cir. 1979) (bias must stem from extrajudicial source to support recusal)
United States v. Marshall, 77 F. Supp. 2d 764 (N.D. Tex. 1999) (movant must show a reasonable person would doubt judge’s impartiality)
Sieber & Callicutt v. Sphere Drake Ins. Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 623 (E.D. Tex. 2002) (biased conduct must come from extrajudicial sources rather than case participation)