United States v. Bravata
2:11-cr-20314
| E.D. Mich. | May 14, 2018Background
- John Bravata was convicted after a 39-day trial of multiple counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud and conspiracy; the Sixth Circuit affirmed his convictions and sentence.
- Post-appeal, Bravata filed a §2255 motion and separately moved to recuse Judge Paul D. Borman under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, alleging personal bias and prejudice by the judge.
- Bravata's recusal motion relied largely on adverse rulings at trial and on post-trial proceedings and included a non-notarized affidavit; he also disputed sentencing facts (which the motion misstated).
- The Government opposed recusal, arguing Bravata presented no cognizable facts of personal bias and that his claims merely rehash adverse rulings already reviewed and rejected on appeal.
- The court reviewed applicable law on judicial disqualification and bias and concluded Bravata's allegations were based solely on judicial rulings and thus did not meet the legal standard for recusal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144/§ 455 | Court should deny recusal because no factual basis for personal bias exists | Judge Borman is personally biased and cannot be impartial, based on trial and post-trial rulings | Denied — allegations based on rulings only do not show personal bias |
| Sufficiency of affidavit supporting recusal | Affidavit legally insufficient; judge must evaluate its sufficiency | Affidavit (non-notarized) alleges bias and supports recusal | Denied — affidavit did not present cognizable facts of personal bias |
| Use of adverse judicial rulings as proof of bias | Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute bias | Rulings against Bravata demonstrate bias/favoritism | Denied — Liteky principle applies: rulings alone insufficient absent deep-seated favoritism |
| Re-litigation of issues already rejected on appeal | Prior appellate review undermines recusal claim; motions rehash settled rulings | Requests are proper even if they revisit issues rejected on appeal | Denied — motion effectively seeks reconsideration of appellate holdings, not recusal |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings alone generally do not constitute valid basis for bias/partiality motion)