Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137040

Plaintiffs challenge Prop 8 as violating federal constitutional rights; Judge Walker presided and issued judgment enjoining Prop 8.
Defendant-Intervenors sought to vacate the judgment after Judge Walker’s retirement and a public disclosure that he was in a same-sex relationship.
Motion to Vacate grounded on alleged disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455, including § 455(b)(4) and § 455(a).
The motion was filed after an appeal of the judgment was docketed and during appellate proceedings.
The court addressed jurisdiction to rule under Rule 62.1(a) and timeliness under Rule 60(b) and related standards.
Court concluded that Judge Walker was not required to recuse or be disqualified under § 455(b)(4) or § 455(a); motion denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Walker was required to recuse under § 455(b)(4).	Intervenors argue the same-sex relationship could be a substantial non-pecuniary interest.	Walker’s relationship could yield a personal stake in outcome; thus disqualification warranted.	Not required; interests are too attenuated to compel recusal.
Whether Judge Walker’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned under § 455(a).	Disqualification necessary because relationship shows potential bias.	Impartiality not reasonably questioned; appearance must be assessed objectively, with limited extrajudicial factors.	Not warranted; mere same-sex relationship does not render impartiality reasonably questioned.
Whether non-disclosure of the relationship would lead a reasonable observer to question impartiality under § 455(a).	Silence about relationship implies bias or lack of transparency.	Silence can reflect neutrality; disclosure is not mandated absent actual bias or directly relevant facts.	Not a basis to question impartiality; disclosure not required given lack of direct stake.
Whether the motion to vacate was timely under Rule 60(b) and Rule 62.1.	Motion filed promptly after discovery of Judge Walker’s relationship.	Argued timeliness based on when information became public and post-judgment events.	Timeliness satisfied; motion timely under Rule 60(b) and 62.1.

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (recusal standards; discretion in considering disqualification under § 455)
Spangle, 626 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2010) (non-pecuniary interests must be substantially affected to warrant recusal)
In re City of Houston, 745 F.2d 925 (5th Cir. 1984) (attenuated interests of a presiding judge do not mandate recusal)
Alabama, 828 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1987) (disqualification not warranted where interests are shared by the public)
Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v. Codispoti, 69 F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 1995) (unworkability of inferring subjective intent from personal characteristics)
Clemens v. United States Dist. Court for Central Dist. of California, 428 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2005) (fact-driven approach to § 455(a) recusal; no speculation-based recusal)
In re Kensington International Limited, 368 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2004) (duty to disclose ex parte associations with entities having a stake)
Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518 (7th Cir. 1985) (duty to disclose close relationships with government counsel)
Tramonte v. Chrysler Corp., 136 F.3d 1025 (5th Cir. 1998) (duty to disclose potential class-member interests of judge's relatives)
First Interstate Bank of Az., N.A. v. Murphy, 210 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2000) (appearance of impartiality standard; presumption of impartiality)