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 

Donna L. Stypeck, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Clarkdale et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV15-08163-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion to disqualify the undersigned judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 455. Doc. 73. Plaintiff states that she has learned from Internet searches that 

some of the defendants in this case and the undersigned judge are Mormons (members of 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Plaintiff states that she is “fearful that 

a conspiracy exists between them and that she has not received an impartial court and 

will not receive an impartial court.” Id. at 2-3. 

 Section 455 provides that a United States judge “shall disqualify” himself in any 

proceeding in which his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 455(a). Federal courts consistently hold, however, that membership in a church does 

not create a sufficient appearance of bias to require disqualification. See Feminist 

Women’s Health Center v. Codispoti, 69 F.3d 399, 400-401 (9th Cir. 1995); Singer v. 

Wadman, 745 F.2d 606, 608 (10th Cir.1984); Menora v. Illinois High School Ass’n, 527 

F.Supp. 632, 634 (N.D. Ill. 1981); State of Idaho v. Freeman, 507 F.Supp. 706, 729 (D. 

Idaho 1981); see also Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, International 

Case 3:15-cv-08163-DGC Document 75 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Union of Operating Engineers, 388 F.Supp. 155 (E.D.Pa.1974). 

 As the Tenth Circuit has explained: 

[M]erely because Judge Stewart belongs to and contributes to the Mormon 

Church would never be enough to disqualify him. . . . Religious freedom is 

one of the Constitution’s most closely guarded values. The First 

Amendment prohibits congressional action respecting an establishment of 

religion, or prohibiting its free exercise. Article VI, clause 3, provides that 

all governmental officers be bound by an oath to support the Constitution, 

and that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any 

Office or public Trust under the United States.” Should we require federal 

judges to disclose the firmness of their beliefs in religious doctrine, it is a 

very fine line before we enter the business of evaluating the relative merits 

of differing religious claims. 

In re McCarthey, 368 F.3d 1266, 1270 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citations 

omitted). 

 Given this well established law, the Court concludes that recusal is not required. 

The undersigned holds no bias against Plaintiff, and had no knowledge of Defendants’ 

religious affiliations prior to Plaintiff’s motion. Those affiliations will not affect the 

Court’s rulings in this case. Nor can the Court conclude that § 455 requires recusal. 

 As Judge Higginbotham noted in denying a similar motion to disqualify: “If the 

facts pleaded do not warrant my disqualification, I am not only permitted to continue to 

preside over the case, I have an affirmative duty not to withdraw.” Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, 388 F.Supp. at 159 (citations omitted). 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification (Doc. 73) is denied. 

 Dated this 20th day of May, 2016. 

Case 3:15-cv-08163-DGC Document 75 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 2