Wise v. United States Department of Justice, 2:25-cv-01167

This case involves plaintiff Sam Wise's motion requesting the recusal of Judge Jamal N. Whitehead from presiding over a federal lawsuit against the United States Department of Justice and others.
The case was initially assigned to different judges but was later reassigned to Judge Whitehead.
Wise argued that the reassignment happened shortly after he allegedly exposed misconduct by government entities and claimed the reassignment was retaliatory.
Wise further asserted that Judge Whitehead's background, including his presidential appointment and potential agency ties, raised doubts about impartiality.
Judge Whitehead declined to recuse himself, and per local rules, the matter was referred to the Chief Judge for independent review.
The reviewing court evaluated the recusal request under the standards of 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, focusing on whether a reasonable person would question Judge Whitehead’s impartiality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reassignment to Judge Whitehead raises reasonable questions of impartiality	Reassignment occurred after exposing misconduct; suggests retaliation and bias	Reassignment was routine and administrative, with no evidence of bias	No evidence of bias; reassignment does not require recusal
Whether Judge Whitehead's background taints impartiality	Alleged ties via appointment and agencies raise appearance of bias	Background alone is insufficient without extrajudicial bias	Prior affiliations are insufficient to require recusal
Adequacy of plaintiff's evidentiary basis for recusal request	Plaintiff relies on suspicions and allegations	Judge argues lack of any factual basis supporting bias	Allegations are conclusory and unsupported; recusal denied
Authority and procedure for case assignment and reassignment	Claims process lacked motion, hearing, or explanation	Court has administrative authority to reassign cases	Administrative reassignment is proper and not ground for recusal

Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605 (9th Cir. 1984) (extrajudicial source of bias required for recusal)
Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1993) (appearance of impartiality standard for recusal)
Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1992) (objective standard for judging judicial bias)
Brody v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 664 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1981) (judicial background insufficient for recusal without more)
In re United States, 666 F.2d 690 (1st Cir. 1981) (recusal not required based on speculative or unsupported allegations)