110 F. Supp. 3d 73
D.D.C.2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff Rory M. Walsh sued multiple government officials alleging a conspiracy to surveil, intimidate, and harass him and his family.
- Clerk entered default against two defendants who later moved to vacate; the Court granted the Motion to Vacate entry of default.
- Walsh moved to recuse Judge Boasberg under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 144, alleging judicial bias and extrajudicial prejudice.
- Key factual bases for recusal: (1) the Court’s order warned that failure to respond to a Motion to Dismiss could result in dismissal "with prejudice," and (2) the Court described Walsh’s filings as "frivolous"/"fantastical," and allegedly boasted bias to staff.
- The Court treated the filings and affidavit as conclusory, finding no particularized facts showing extrajudicial bias or personal prejudice arising outside the record.
- The Court denied recusal, ruling Walsh’s allegations insufficient under both § 455 and § 144 and declining to transfer the motion to another judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge must recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)/(b)(1) for alleged bias | Walsh: Judge’s language ("with prejudice") and descriptors ("frivolous/fantastical") plus alleged boasts to staff show bias or extrajudicial prejudice | Court: Statements and docket entries reflect permissible judicial rulings and descriptions supported by record and prior precedents; no allegation of reliance on extrajudicial sources | Denied—no objective appearance of bias nor specific extrajudicial source of prejudice shown |
| Whether recusal required under 28 U.S.C. § 144 based on affidavit alleging personal bias | Walsh: Filed affidavit repeating claims that judge prejudged the case and boasted to staff | Court: Affidavit is conclusory and lacks particularized facts to convince a reasonable mind of personal bias; procedural sufficiency requires particularity | Denied—affidavit legally insufficient under § 144 |
Key Cases Cited
- Karim-Panahi v. U.S. Congress, [citation="105 F. App'x 270"] (D.C. Cir.) (objective standard for § 455 recusal)
- United States v. Pollard, 959 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir.) (distinguishing actual bias from judicial rulings)
- Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir.) (notice of possible dismissal consequences)
- SEC v. Loving Spirit Found. Inc., 392 F.3d 486 (D.C. Cir.) (rulings alone rarely establish basis for recusal)
- United States v. Bennett, 539 F.2d 45 (10th Cir.) (conclusory affidavits insufficient under § 144)
- Hanrahan v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 471 (D.D.C.) (particularity requirement for § 144 affidavit)
- Strange v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 46 F. Supp. 3d 78 (D.D.C.) (court determines sufficiency of § 144 filing)