Rudnick v. Raemisch, 1:16-cv-02071

Pro se plaintiff James Rudnick moved for recusal of the district judge and Magistrate Judge Mix, claiming bias and prejudice favoring defendants and the government, and seeking judicial review/recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455.
Rudnick reasserted merits claims that defendants violated multiple constitutional rights by withholding and sharing his legal files, threatening deletion, censoring materials, and confiscating eyeglasses.
Rudnick relied primarily on prior adverse rulings, alleged delays in ruling on motions, and dismissal of certain government-affiliated defendants as evidence of bias.
Several decisions Rudnick cited were issued by other judges (Magistrate Judge Gallagher, Judge Arguello, Judge Babcock), not by the presiding district judge or Magistrate Judge Mix.
The court reviewed Rudnick’s pending motions (TRO/preliminary injunction, motions to amend/add parties, objections, and motions for default) and found docket activity and recent rulings, including a magistrate recommendation denying the TRO.
The district court denied the recusal motion, concluding Rudnick offered only dissatisfaction and conclusory assertions, not objective facts showing partiality or improper motive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge impartiality can be reasonably questioned under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)	Rudnick says adverse rulings and other conduct show bias, so recusal required	Court and Magistrate Judge Mix argue rulings and alleged conduct do not show objective bias; many rulings were by other judges	Denied — adverse rulings alone do not warrant recusal; no objective factual basis shown
Whether judicial delays justify recusal	Rudnick asserts unreasonable delay on multiple motions harmed him and evidences partiality	Court notes active docket management, recent rulings, duplicative/overlapping motions causing delay, and no other indicia of bias	Denied — delay alone, without other bias indicators, is insufficient for recusal
Whether dismissal of certain government officials shows favoritism toward the government	Rudnick contends dismissed high-ranking officials and protection of state employees show court bias	Court points out dismissals were by another judge and Rudnick offers no evidence of favoritism	Denied — conclusory assertions and determinations by other judges do not show partiality
Whether failure to add or record new parties shows bias	Rudnick alleges court failed to add new parties (pending motion) and thus acted partial	Court notes motion to amend/add parties is pending; timing complaints mirror delay argument	Denied — pending procedural matters and timing do not establish objective bias

Estate of Bishop v. Equinox Int’l Corp., 256 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 2001) (adverse rulings alone do not require disqualification; objective standard for recusal)
United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993) (analysis of outward manifestations and reasonable inferences for impartiality inquiry)
Sac & Fox Nation of Okla. v. Cuomo, 193 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 1999) (delay in rulings, without other indicia, does not create reasonable doubt about impartiality)
Kennedy v. Meacham, 540 F.2d 1057 (10th Cir. 1976) (judge delay insufficient grounds for disqualification)
Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937 (10th Cir. 1987) (court has duty not to recuse absent valid basis)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Trackwell v. United States Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2007) (pro se filings held to less stringent standard)