1 

### NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: JOHN PATRICK STOKES, Debtor

. BAP No. MT

- 21

- 1113

- BGT

Bk. No. 9:21

- bk

- 90013

- JDP

MEMORANDUM ∗ JOHN PATRICK STOKES , Appellant.

Appeal from the Unite d States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana Jim D. Pappas, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding
Before: BRAND , GAN, and TAYLOR, Bankruptcy Judges. John Patrick Stokes appeals an order denying his motion to recuse the
b ankruptcy judge from his case , whi ch is the fifth bankruptcy case Stokes has
filed since 2009

. The primary basis for Stokes's most recent bankruptcy filings
in 2018 and 2021 is a di spute over what is known as the Raven Way Property,
which LSF8 Mast er Participation Trust ("LSF8") purchased at a trustee' s sale in
2016. The Hon. Jim D. Pappas was assigned to Stokes's 2018 bankruptcy case. In that case, Judge Pappas granted LSF8 relief from the automatic stay to

∗ This disposition is not appropriate for publication. Although it may be cited for whatever persuasive value it may have, see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, it has no precedential value, see 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8024

- 1. 

# FILED

FEB 1 2022
SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT2 cont inue with its eviction efforts against S tokes

. Thereafter , the state court

awa rded LSF8 possess ion of the Raven Way Property. Stokes's 2021 bankruptcy case preempted the possession judgment

. Despite contrary rulings from the bankruptcy court, this Panel, and the state court, Stokes
continues to ass ert that he is the owner of the Rav en Way Prop erty, not LSF8. Judge Pappas w as also assigned to the 2021 bankruptcy case. Stokes filed an "Affidavit of Prejudice" r equesting that Judge Pappas disqualify
himself from the case. Stokes's reasons fo r seeking recusal centered on events
and cour t rulings from his 2018 case. After a hearing, Judge Pappas denied the recusal motion, determining that Stokes's allegations of bias or prejudice were unsupported and that he failed to e stablish any basis for recusal. 1
Stokes does not c ontend that Judge Pappas applied an incorrect legal standard for recusal. Rather, he argues that Judge Pappas has an "extreme bias" against him, and that it was er ror for him to preside over this case or issue any orders. Stokes did not present any evidence in the bankrup tcy court, n or any reasoned argument in this appeal, th at would sup port recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. 2 His claims of alleged bias, prejudice, or lack of impartiality all invo lve procedural or substantive rulings the judge made during the course of the

1 The 2021 bankruptcy case has been dismissed. The order denying r ecusal became a final appealable order once the bankruptc y court entered the final order dismissin g the
case. See Seidel v. Durkin (In re Goodwin) , 194 B.R. 214, 221 (9th Cir. BAP 1996)

. 2 S tokes did not even address the recusal mot ion at oral argument . After or al argument, he filed a letter to the Panel. W e generally do not consider filings after an appeal has been submitted. However, even if we did consider it , the letter requests relief on3 pro ceedings which Stokes perceived as adverse. That the judge later referred
to Stokes as a "s quatter" in granting LSF8 retroactive annulment from the s tay did not demonstrate bias or prejudice; it was simply the judge's assessment of a fact based on the poss ession judgment issued by the s tate court.
Stokes clearly disagrees with some of Judge Pappas's prior rulings and wishes to relitigate them. However, bias, prejudice, or lack of impartiality cannot be challenged by a litigant on the basis that the litigan t disagrees with
the judge's rulings or orders. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) ; Com. Paper Holders v. Hine (In re Beverly Hills Bancorp) , 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1984) (adverse rulings alone are legally insufficient to require recu sal, even when the number of such adverse rulings is extraordinarily high on a statistical basis). The vehicle for challenging such disagreements or purported errors is an appeal, a proced ure with which Stokes is familiar. See F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Judges are known to make procedural and even substantive errors on occasion. The errors alleged here would be the basis for appeal, not recusal.").
Because Stokes did not demonstra te any bi as, prejudice, or lack of impartiality, Judge Pappas did not abuse his discretion in denying the recusal

m otion. See In re Goodwin , 194 B.R. at 220 (order denying a motion to recuse is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
We AFFIRM.

matters that are not properly before us.