Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00054/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00054-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JAN E. KRUSKA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PERVERTED JUSTICE

FOUNDATION INCORPORATED, et.

al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0054-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal of the Honorable Stephen M.

McNamee (Doc. 151). Plaintiff requests recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, and asks

that the case be transferred to another judge in the District of Arizona. Plaintiff bases her

recusal motion on the “extrajudicial activism” of Judge McNamee, “exemplified by

various prestigious awards, his role as a former United States prosecutor coupled with

questionable conduct and lack of judicial diligence” in the present case. 

28 U.S.C. § 455(a) states that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate of the United

States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Section 455 imposes an affirmative duty

upon judges to recuse themselves when “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the

facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 

Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622,626 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Yagman, 796

F.2d 1165, 1179 (9th Cir. 1986). Recusal is required “only if the bias or prejudice stems

from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of

Case 2:08-cv-00054-SMM Document 156 Filed 03/05/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

the proceeding.” Pau v. Yosemite Park and Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1991)

(quoting Toth v. TransWorld Airlines, 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988).

In the present case, recusal is not warranted. First, the fact that Judge McNamee

has been honored with awards is not indicative of a lack of impartiality that would require

recusal. Second, Judge McNamee’s former role as a government prosecutor is not a

reason for recusal. 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3) directs a judge to disqualify himself “[w]here

he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel,

adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion

concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3). 

Judge McNamee was the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona from 1985-

1990. Plaintiff’s case was not filed until January 2008, and thus, Judge McNamee never

participated in this case in any capacity, either as counsel, advisor, or witness. 

Third, Plaintiff cites “questionable conduct” of Judge McNamee as a reason for

recusal, but offers no specific facts to support this assertion. Finally, Plaintiff raises a

lack of judicial diligence in her recusal motion. This is not a proper basis for recusal

under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Indeed, since Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in January 2008,

barely over a year ago, there have been 155 docket entries, many of them attributable to

Plaintiff. The Court has devoted significant time and resources to resolving Plaintiff’s

motions, often to the exclusion of other cases on its docket. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal of the

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee (Doc. 151). 

DATED this 4th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00054-SMM Document 156 Filed 03/05/09 Page 2 of 2