Opinion ID: 12729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 8 We note at the outset that a petition for writ of mandamus is an appropriate legal vehicle for challenging the denial of a disqualification motion, but it is relief granted only in exceptional circumstances. 2 Although section 455 speaks in mandatory language, 3 in actual application we have recognized that the decision to recuse is committed to the sound discretion of the district court and typically is reviewed for an abuse thereof. 4 But, [i]f the question of whether § 455(a) requires disqualification is a close one, the balance tips in favor of recusal. 5 9 The purpose of section 455(a), upon which Chevron principally relies, is apparent; it seeks to protect against even the appearance of impropriety in judicial proceedings 6 and we are charged with determining whether a reasonable and objective person, knowing all of the facts, would harbor doubts concerning the judge's impartiality. 7 10 The Supreme Court has given substantial guidance in the proper application to be given to section 455(a), teaching that judicial rulings and comments standing alone rarely will suffice to disqualify a judge. 8 For example, it has instructed that judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge. 9 Such remarks will require disqualification, however, if they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. 10 11 Bringing to our attention several comments made on the record by the trial judge, 11 Chevron contends that he should be disqualified for expressing personal views about race, based on an extrajudicial source, reflecting a pronounced bias against Chevron. Alternatively, Chevron submits that even if the judge is not actually biased, the statements have created such an appearance of prejudice or bias that public confidence in the judiciary generally, and in the outcome of the instant litigation in particular, will be sorely impaired. We perforce agree with Chevron that the challenged statements and comments are unfortunate, grossly inappropriate, and deserving of close and careful scrutiny and most serious consideration. 12 12 We are not persuaded from our review of the filings before us, specifically the relevant excerpting of the trial court's comments which counsel have quoted, together with the representations of counsel in oral argument, that counsel have carried their burden of demonstrating that the district judge has a personal bias or prejudice for or against any party in the subject litigation. From the comments and actions counsel have underscored in briefs and oral argument we are not persuaded that the judge has displayed a deep-seated favoritism toward the plaintiff, nor has he formed actual opinions based upon an extrajudicial source that disadvantage Chevron. We reach a different conclusion, however, as relates to the charge of an appearance of partiality. 13 Chevron's alternative argument that a reasonable and objective person, knowing all of the facts, would harbor doubts concerning the judge's impartiality is persuasive. This standard applies if a judge's statements reveal an opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source. 13 The quoted statements qualify as such. 14 While one may argue to the contrary, we must conclude that a reasonable person could believe that some of the judge's rulings might be impacted by beliefs or feelings, conscious or unconscious, underlying the quoted statements. Despite the assurances of counsel present when the statements were made that they were made either in jest or purposely were outrageous or sarcastic 14 and used by the judge to emphasize his point in explaining his position, and that no harm was intended, we must consider more. Regardless of intent, it is totally unacceptable for a federal judge--irrespective of the judge's color--to make racially insensitive statements or even casual comments of same during the course of judicial proceedings. 15 Such are not to be tolerated in any litigation and most decidedly are verboten in litigation in which racial or ethnic considerations are relevant to an issue before the court. When they occur, the risk of creating a public perception that the judge has a bias or prejudice which might affect the outcome crosses the proscribed threshold. This is especially true in a racially-charged case such as the instant one. Accordingly, here a reasonable person might indeed harbor doubts about the trial judge's impartiality and recusal would be appropriate under the terms of § 455(a). 15 Reaching that conclusion does not complete our consideration of the instant petition, for mandamus ordinarily is a discretionary remedy. 16 Relative to the specifics before us, we today hold that in a situation in which recusal is sought on the basis of perceived bias, we have the discretion to decline to grant the writ of mandamus. We opt to exercise that discretion. 16 Our examination of the course of the subject litigation reflects several facts critical to today's disposition. The jury was picked over 10 weeks ago and the trial began. There already have been 31 trial days during which 58 witnesses have testified. The trial was preceded by at least 9 pretrial conferences. It appears that the plaintiffs are very near the completion of their case in chief. To disqualify the present judge this far into the proceedings would be unprecedented. 17 17 This conclusion is bolstered by our view that the continuation of these proceedings in the district court would not be an exercise in futility. Chevron has not begun to present its side of the case. Once the trial proceeds to final judgment, if appropriate and called for another panel may review the record of the entire trial to determine whether any proscribed bias requires that the final judgment be vacated. That panel would have substantially greater information available to it. 18 Capsulating, we are not persuaded from our review of the filings in this court by counsel for the parties, the quoted excerpts from the trial record, and the representations of counsel in oral argument, that the district judge has been shown to have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Thus, we at this time deny mandamus on the claim of personal bias or prejudice for want of a clear and strong showing on the merits. This ruling is not intended to trigger law of the case consequences that would bind a subsequent panel of this court. 18 We conclude, however, that a reasonable perception of bias or prejudice exists but, for the reasons assigned, we decline to issue the requested writ. 19 We entrust to the district judge's discretion the proper course of action in light of today's disposition and our reasons therefor. Because of the identified discretionary basis for our ruling, the denial of the writ necessarily is without prejudice to petitioners. 20 In light of today's ruling the pending motion for an instanter ruling or, alternatively, for a lifting of our stay of trial proceedings is mooted and is dismissed as such. 21 The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.