Richard Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, In
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17861
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Richard and Audrey Haase appealed the district court’s dismissal of their suit naming multiple defendants, including the entire Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Haases did not file an opening brief; instead they moved to transfer the appeal to another circuit, arguing that naming the court/judges as defendants showed bias and required disqualification.
- As an alternative, the Haases sought an extension of time to file their appellate brief, which was due August 24, 2016.
- Appellees Countrywide, Bank of America, and Deutsche Bank moved to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
- The clerk received the Haases’ extension motion on August 26, 2016—two days after the brief was due—and the Haases made no showing required by Fifth Circuit Rule 31.4.1(a).
- The panel considered judicial disqualification principles, the Rule of Necessity, the late-extension rules, and the appellees’ dismissal motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal must be transferred because all judges of this court are biased (disqualification) | Haase: naming the court/judges as defendants proves judicial bias and requires transfer to another circuit | Appellees: indiscriminate naming does not require transfer; Rule of Necessity permits this court to hear the case | Denied transfer; Rule of Necessity applies—if all judges would be disqualified, none are disqualified in a way that prevents adjudication |
| Whether the court must transfer because qualified judges exist in other circuits | Haase: presence of other qualified judges requires transfer | Appellees: availability of judges elsewhere does not defeat Rule of Necessity | Denied—existence of qualified judges in other circuits does not compel transfer when party names an entire court |
| Whether to grant an extension of time to file the opening brief | Haase: requested extra time after the deadline (alternative request) | Appellees: motion untimely and fails to meet Fifth Circuit Rule 31.4.1(a) requirements | Denied—extension request filed after deadline without required showing; brief remains due and appeal subject to dismissal for want of prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) (articulates Rule of Necessity allowing judges to decide cases when disqualification of all would prevent adjudication)
- Ignacio v. Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule of Necessity applies when a litigant indiscriminately accuses all judges of bias)
- In re City of Houston, 745 F.2d 925 (5th Cir. 1984) (observing that where all are disqualified, none are disqualified under the Rule of Necessity)
- Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185 F.3d 8 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that naming all judges does not require transfer and Rule of Necessity may permit adjudication)
Outcome: The panel denied the transfer and extension motions and granted the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.