In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 816 F.3d 1266

Complainant filed a judicial-misconduct complaint alleging an appearance of impropriety by a district judge who had multiple ties to the plaintiff university.
Alleged ties: judge is an alumnus, previously served on the alumni association board, gave lectures/served as adjunct professor decades earlier, received honorary awards, and taught/lectured there.
Complainant also alleged the judge lives next-door to the university’s attorney; they are neighbors.
Complaint expressly disclaimed any allegation of actual misconduct or that the judge engaged in judicial misconduct; complainant never moved for recusal during the underlying case.
The district judge previously presided over at least four cases involving the university.
The judicial-conduct review dismissed the complaint for failure to show facts that would create an objective appearance of impropriety or warrant recusal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge’s alumni/board/adjunct/award ties to a university create an appearance of impropriety requiring recusal	These multiple associations with the university create an appearance of bias in favor of the university	Alumni status, prior unpaid service, honorary awards, and past adjunct work are minimal contacts that do not create a disqualifying appearance	Dismissed: such alumni and prior-affiliation contacts, without more (e.g., fiduciary interest), do not create appearance of impropriety
Whether geographic proximity to the university’s attorney (next-door neighbors) creates an appearance of impropriety	Close neighbor relationship with the university’s lawyer raises concern about impartiality	Mere geographic proximity or neighborhood relationship, without specific facts of favoritism or intimacy, is insufficient to show appearance of impropriety	Dismissed: proximity alone does not establish a reasonable objective appearance of bias

Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (appearance of justice requirement)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (recusal required where probability of actual bias is too high)
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (board service can create appearance of impropriety when it creates a fiduciary interest)
U.S. ex rel. Hochman v. Nackman, 145 F.3d 1069 (alumni and minimal university contacts insufficient to require recusal)
In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 632 F.3d 1289 (standards for dismissing misconduct complaints lacking prejudicial conduct)
Greenway v. Schriro, 653 F.3d 790 (Supreme Court has recognized limited circumstances requiring recusal to ensure due process)