Wise v. United States Department of Justice
2:25-cv-01167
W.D. Wash.
Aug 14, 2025
Check Treatment
Docket

SAM WISE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.

CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01167-JNW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

August 14, 2025

This matter comes before the Court on Judge Jamal N. Whitehead‘s denial (Dkt. No. 38) of Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal. (Dkt. No. 31.) Local Civil Rule 3(f) provides that whenever a judge in this District declines to voluntarily recuse themself from a case following a party‘s motion to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, “he or she will direct the clerk to refer the motion to the chief judge.” Accordingly, this Court now reviews Judge Whitehead‘s decision not to recuse.

Motions for recusal are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Recusal is required if a judge‘s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or if the judge harbors personal bias or prejudice against a party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). Such bias or prejudice must derive from an extrajudicial source. ; . Under both 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal of a federal judge is appropriate if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge‘s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” . This is an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not whether there is bias in fact. .

Plaintiff argues this case, which was initially assigned to Judges David W. Christel and John C. Coughenour, was re-assigned to Judge Whitehead “without motion, hearing, or explanation.” (Dkt. No 31 at 2.) Plaintiff argues the case was re-assigned to Judge Whitehead shortly after he exposed misconduct by the United States Department of Justice and the Texas State Board of Dental Examiners. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that Judge Whitehead‘s previous affiliations, “including presidential appointment and potential agency ties — raise reasonable questions of ideological or institutional alignment.” (Id.) Plaintiff argues the re-assignment of this case to Judge Whitehead is part of a broader pattern of “retaliation and targeted reassignment.” (Id. at 3.)

Judge Whitehead declined to recuse himself voluntarily, noting that district courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets and to reassign cases for administrative purposes. (Dkt. No. 38 at 2.) The Court agrees, and finds no evidence that the routine administrative re-assignment of this case has any implications for Judge Whitehead‘s impartiality.

Plaintiff‘s conclusory allegations concerning Judge Whitehead‘s prior affiliations cannot, without more, constitute a basis for recusal. (“All judges come to the bench with a background of experiences, associations and viewpoints. This background alone is seldom sufficient in itself to provide a reasonable basis for recusal.“); (A judge should not recuse himself based “on unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation; were he or she to do so, the price of maintaining the purity of appearance would be the power of litigants or third parties to exercise a negative veto over the assignment of judges.“).

The Court finds no evidence that would lead a reasonable person to question Judge Whitehead‘s impartiality. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS Judge Whitehead‘s denial (Dkt. No. 38) of Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal. (Dkt. No. 31.)

Dated this 14th day of August, 2025.

David G. Estudillo

United States District Judge

Read the detailed case summary