Kevin Miles v. Charles Ryan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20344
9th Cir.2012Background
- Miles, petitioner-appellant, seeks habeas relief in D. Ariz.; district court case No. 4:01-cv-00645-RRC.
- Appellant-miles moved for recusal of Judge Graber; motion was directed to all three judges but, per circuit rules, decided by each judge individually; Graber denied.
- Basis for recusal was Judge Graber’s life tragedy (father’s murder) decades ago, claimed to cast doubt on impartiality in a capital case.
- Judges Graber has presided over numerous capital cases for nearly 25 years and has never recused; the motion here is without merit.
- The court uses the standard that “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” by a reasonable informed observer; the standard must not be hyper-broad or presumptive.
- Motion was peculiarly timed, raised after decision on habeas relief and after a change in counsel; information could have been discovered earlier; the motion is inappropriate to the case and lacks merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recusal of Judge Graber was required. | Miles contends impartiality might be questioned due to Graber’s past tragedy. | Ryan argues experience and outcomes do not show bias; no basis for disqualification. | Recusal not required; standard not met. |
| What is the proper standard for assessing impartiality in recusal requests. | Miles relies on the “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” test. | Ryan adopts the same standard; must be a reasonably well-informed observer. | Standard properly applied; not biased by past events. |
| Whether the timing of the recusal motion undermines its propriety. | Miles argues timely filing is sufficient given potential bias. | Motion filed after decision and with new counsel; late and improper. | Untimely recusal motion is inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suever v. Connell, 681 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2012) (recusal decisions individualized; impartiality standard applied to judges)
- Feminist Women’s Health Ctr. v. Codispoti, 69 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 1995) (disqualification standards and no automatic recusal for all personal connections)
- Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for when a judge’s personal characteristics affect impartiality; upheld denial of recusal)
- United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008) (impartiality analysis; reasonable observer test; limits on recusal)
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 790 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (district court dealing with recusal issues in related matter; cited for standard discussions)