Dydzak v. Chen, 3:17-cv-06843

Plaintiff Daniel D. Dydzak filed a "Motion to Disqualify" Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 23, 2018, seeking recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455.
Section 144 requires a timely, legally sufficient affidavit alleging extrajudicial bias; § 455 requires disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The Court reviewed the declaration accompanying Dydzak's motion to determine legal sufficiency under § 144 and considered § 455 grounds separately.
The declaration was largely conclusory and primarily complained about the judge's prior rulings rather than alleging extrajudicial bias or particularized facts.
The Court concluded the affidavit failed the detail requirement for § 144 and that disagreement with judicial rulings does not warrant recusal under § 455, and therefore denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dydzak's affidavit is legally sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 144	Affidavit alleges bias warranting disqualification	Affidavit is conclusory and lacks extrajudicial factual allegations required by § 144	Denied — affidavit legally insufficient; alleges only disagreement with rulings
Whether recusal is required under 28 U.S.C. § 455	Judge's impartiality is reasonably questioned (based on asserted facts)	No reasonable basis shown; prior adverse rulings alone do not require recusal	Denied — no grounds under § 455; prior rulings not a cognizable ground
Whether disagreement with court rulings supports recusal	Prior adverse rulings reflect bias	Prior rulings are insufficient; must stem from extrajudicial source	Denied — prior adverse rulings are not sufficient cause for recusal
Whether the motion should be referred to another judge under § 144 procedure	Motion seeks referral if affidavit sufficient	Court finds affidavit insufficient and need not refer	Denied — no referral because affidavit fails legal sufficiency

United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864 (9th Cir.) (distinguishes procedural requirements of §§ 144 and 455 and explains affidavit sufficiency under § 144)
Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir.) (affidavit must allege bias from an extrajudicial source; rulings during proceedings insufficient)
Grimes v. United States, 396 F.2d 331 (9th Cir.) (affidavit must contain definite detail of time, place, and character to be sufficient under § 144)
United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir.) (prior adverse judicial rulings do not alone require recusal)