In re City of Milwaukee, 788 F.3d 717

Background

Multiple related civil suits allege Milwaukee police engaged in unconstitutional stops, strip-searches, and body-cavity searches; Judge Stadtmueller presided over several.
The City moved for the judge’s recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); the judge denied the motion and explained his reasoning in an opinion denying recusal.
The City (and police chief) petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus to overturn the denial of recusal; plaintiffs in the underlying suits opposed the petition.
The City identified five judicial statements (made during litigation) that it argued demonstrated the judge’s partiality; one statement relied on an extrajudicial source (a newspaper quote about Police Chief Flynn).
The district judge had both ruled for plaintiffs on some issues and in favor of the City on important issues (e.g., substantially reducing punitive damages), which provided contextual balance to his critical remarks.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed recusal de novo from the perspective of a reasonable, well-informed observer and denied the mandamus petition, finding no disqualifying bias.

Issues

Issue	City’s Argument	Plaintiffs’ Argument	Held
Whether Judge Stadtmueller’s comment citing Chief Flynn’s public criticism of Floyd indicates extrajudicial bias	Quote and footnote show judge relied on extrajudicial source and overstated Flynn’s position, casting doubt on impartiality	Comment merely placed Hardy in broader context; remark did not demonstrate inability to decide fairly	Not disqualifying; reasonable observer, given context and the judge’s rulings for City, would not conclude loss of impartiality
Whether describing an officer as “MPD’s primary strip-search offender” and noting incarceration shows bias	Language improperly shows deep-seated antagonism; officer entered nolo contendere and maintains innocence	Statement was factually accurate (conviction/no-contest pleas) and relevant to factual findings; not bias	Not disqualifying; accurate, record-based description does not prove bias
Whether admonition against repeating “nonstarter arguments” and threat of sanctions shows antagonism	Warning could unfairly preclude arguments that might be valid in different cases	Court-administration and case-management prerogatives justify reasonable warnings to avoid wasting time	Not disqualifying; ordinary courtroom administration and temperament do not require recusal
Whether reference to the City leadership opposing suits “without indication of efforts to combat systemic problems” shows prejudgment of municipal liability	Phrase shows judge concluded City has unlawful municipal policies/customs, demonstrating deep bias	Recognizing possible systemic problems for case-management does not equal concluding illegality; judge may examine common threads to manage related suits	Not disqualifying; comment reflects case management and investigatory posture, not irredeemable antagonism

Key Cases Cited

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judge’s in-court opinions ordinarily not grounds for recusal absent extrajudicial source or deep-seated antagonism)
In re Sherwin-Williams Co., 607 F.3d 474 (7th Cir.) (mandamus is appropriate vehicle to challenge denial of recusal)
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913 (in chambers opinion on objective reasonable-observer standard)
In re United States, 572 F.3d 301 (7th Cir.) (assessing recusal from reasonable-observer perspective)
United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345 (7th Cir.) (related recusal/statement analysis)
In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384 (7th Cir.) (ordinary judicial errors or differing views do not require recusal)
Frey v. E.P.A., 751 F.3d 461 (7th Cir.) (affirming denial of recusal where judge presided over related cases)
Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (S.D.N.Y.) (background case on stop-and-frisk referenced by Judge Stadtmueller)