Casillas v. Mitchell McConnell
2:25-cv-01175
| D. Nev. | Aug 15, 2025Background:
- Plaintiff Miguel Enrique Casillas, proceeding pro se, filed a federal civil suit in the District of Nevada and sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Plaintiff submitted the short form IFP application, listing income from worker’s compensation, $2,000 in savings, ownership of a car, and monthly expenses, but failed to disclose specific income details for the prior twelve months.
- The Court found the short form application incomplete and was unable to determine Plaintiff’s eligibility for IFP status.
- Plaintiff also filed a motion to recuse the assigned judge based on disagreement with the judge’s standing order on procedural matters.
- The Court reviewed both the IFP application and the motion to recuse, issuing rulings on August 15, 2025.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incomplete IFP Application | Listed some assets but did not report recent income | (Not stated) | IFP application denied without prejudice, must refile long form |
| Motion for Recusal Based on Bias | Judge should be recused due to disfavored orders | (Not stated) | Motion to recuse denied; disagreement with orders insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (standard for in forma pauperis—litigant need not be destitute but must prove inability to pay fees while maintaining life's necessities)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial disfavor or critical remarks during a proceeding are not grounds for recusal absent extrajudicial bias)
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) (IFP applicants must state facts regarding poverty with particularity)
- Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am., 902 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1990) (recusal required where impartiality might reasonably be questioned)
- United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for recusal: whether a reasonable person would question the judge's impartiality)