2:15-cv-01228
D. Nev.Jul 11, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Darren Heyman sued the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and individual defendants; case reassigned to Judge Andrew P. Gordon after Judge Boulware recused. Magistrate Judge Foley remains assigned.
- Heyman moved for: (1) Judge Gordon’s recusal, (2) change of venue, (3) a stay pending reassignment, and (4) reconsideration by the newly assigned judge.
- Heyman alleges Judge Gordon has multiple ties to UNLV Law School (volunteering, teaching, hiring graduates, supervising externs) and did not disclose those ties, arguing they create actual or apparent bias. He also asserts similar ties might exist throughout the Las Vegas bench and that jurors would be biased.
- Defendants argued Ninth Circuit precedent does not require recusal for these types of law‑school affiliations and that prior adverse rulings are not a basis for recusal. They opposed venue transfer and other relief as unnecessary and burdensome.
- The court analyzed recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1), considered precedents on judicial contacts with law schools and on when judicial rulings justify recusal, and concluded the alleged ties and prior rulings did not create a reasonable question of impartiality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 | Gordon’s ties to UNLV Law (volunteer work, teaching, hiring, supervising students) and nondisclosure create actual or apparent bias | Ninth Circuit precedent permits minimal law‑school contacts; prior adverse rulings are not bias | Denied — affiliations and prior rulings do not show bias or reasonable appearance of bias |
| Change of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 | Southern Nevada judges likely share ties to UNLV; local jurors would be biased; Reno is preferable | Transfer is unnecessary, burdensome, and unsupported by law | Denied — alleged ties do not justify moving a long‑pending case |
| Stay pending reassignment | Case should be stayed until a new judge and venue are assigned | Opposed as unnecessary | Dismissed as moot (reassignment occurred) |
| Reconsideration by new judge | All prior orders should be reconsidered by reassigned judge due to alleged bias | Prior orders do not warrant recusal or automatic reconsideration | Dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986) (defines the § 455(a) "reasonable person" standard)
- United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable person is not hypersensitive or unduly suspicious)
- In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 816 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2016) (minimal alumni or law‑school contacts do not require recusal)
- U.S. ex rel. Hochman v. Nackman, 145 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1998) (alumni status and unpaid adjunct service are insufficient for recusal)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings ordinarily do not establish bias unless they show deep‑seated favoritism or antagonism)