State Bar of California v. Everett, 3:17-cv-01716

Daniel Everett twice attempted to remove pending California State Bar disciplinary proceedings to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).
Everett filed multiple motions seeking recusal of the presiding district judge in both an active case (No. 17-cv-03595-SI) and a previously remanded case (No. 17-cv-01716-SI).
Everett contended the judge was biased in favor of the State Bar and unable to act impartially; he asserted extrajudicial bias based on the judge’s participation as a moderator at a State Bar event and alleged (without proof) she was compensated.
The judge had previously remanded Everett’s earlier removal as improper and clarified that the State Bar proceedings did not present federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The State Bar opposed recusal and urged resolution of the disciplinary proceedings without delay; the judge found Everett’s motions legally insufficient and an effort to delay the Bar process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge must recuse under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 & 455	Recusal not sought by plaintiff (State Bar opposed)	Judge is biased due to prior rulings and participation in a State Bar event; allegedly compensated	Denied — a reasonable person would not question impartiality
Whether judicial rulings alone justify recusal	N/A	Prior remand orders show judge’s bias against Everett	Denied — judicial rulings alone usually do not constitute bias
Whether extrajudicial source (event participation) requires recusal	N/A	Judge’s role as moderator and alleged compensation create appearance of bias	Denied — participation was not compensatory; State Bar is a government entity; no deep-seated favoritism shown
Whether motions were properly supported and timely	N/A	Motions were verified but legally insufficient and filed for delay	Denied — verified statements insufficient; motions deemed delaying tactics

United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450 (9th Cir. 1997) (standard for questioning judicial impartiality; extrajudicial-source focus)
United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986) (judicial rulings generally do not support bias claims)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (opinions formed during proceedings are not grounds for recusal absent deep-seated antagonism)