Opinion ID: 2760359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judicial Bias and Right to a Jury Trial

Text: Stanley further argues that the district court judge should have recused himself due to bias and improperly denied him a jury trial. As described by Stanley, both arguments stem from the district judge allegedly making “several invective statements concerning the facts of this case” in his order In his discussion of the mental state requirement, Stanley makes a number of other 1 arguments that merit no more than a passing mention. Stanley briefly argues that the Government’s attempt to collect his outstanding tax liabilities amounts to “overt class discrimination” and “tax profiling” in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Pub. L. No. 104-168, § 301(a), 110 Stat. 1452 (1996). Stanley also states that the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment evinced an application of the “McNaughten Rules,” which are not applicable to an evaluation of willfulness under § 523(a)(1)(C). Finally, Stanley argues that because he suffers from bipolar disorder, punishing him for behavior outside of his control as a result of his disorder would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2000). Stanley cites no relevant authority or evidence in support of any of these claims, nor does he explain them in any detail. Due to Stanley’s failure to brief these issues in any meaningful sense, we do not consider them. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Failure adequately to brief an issue on appeal constitutes waiver of that argument.”). 10 Case: 13-60704 Document: 00512867556 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 No. 13-60704 granting in part and denying in part summary judgment. Neither argument has merit. A district court judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and “[h]e shall disqualify himself . . . [w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” id. § 455(b)(1). Stanley’s allegations of bias derive from the district court’s statements considering, on motion for summary judgment, whether Stanley acted willfully in attempting to evade his 1998-2004 tax liabilities. Stanley argues that the district judge demonstrated bias in his summary judgment order by, for example, characterizing Stanley’s evidence as “strained” and noting that “it is hard to envision a debtor violating the conduct requirement [of the willfulness test] without also violating the mental state requirement because an attempt requires some form of intent to commit an act.” However, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion” and “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.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); see also Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 462 (5th Cir. 2003) (noting that “Liteky draws no distinction based on the type of proceeding, and none is warranted”). Such remarks do not suggest bias “unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Litkey, 510 U.S. at 555; see also United States v. Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824, 830 (5th Cir. 2007) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of recusal motion where “[t]he facts . . . do not demonstrate bias and impartiality that are personal—as distinguished from judicial—in nature”). Stanley’s argument is particularly weak here, as he alleges that the 11 Case: 13-60704 Document: 00512867556 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/12/2014 No. 13-60704 district judge’s statements demonstrated bias against Stanley’s “willfulness” argument, but the statements to which Stanley points came from the district judge’s consideration, and ultimate denial, of the Government’s motion for summary judgment on the “willfulness” issue. Because the district judge’s statements do not demonstrate “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible,” they fail to support a claim for bias or prejudice. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Stanley’s contention that he was wrongly denied a jury trial is similarly meritless. Proceedings concerning the nondischargeability of debts are equitable in nature and therefore “[b]ankruptcy litigants . . . have no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in dischargeability proceedings.” In re Hashemi, 104 F.3d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir. 1996); In re Hallahan, 936 F.2d 1496, 1505 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A] dischargeability proceeding is a type of equitable claim for which a party cannot obtain a jury trial.”). Stanley therefore had no right to a jury to determine the dischargeability of his income tax liability. Although Stanley did have a right to a jury trial as to the liability and amount of his unpaid taxes, he does not dispute those aspects of the Government’s claim. See In re Merrill, 594 F.2d 1064, 1068 (5th Cir. 1979). Thus, the district court did not err in denying Stanley’s request for a jury trial.