Opinion ID: 1269651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Request for Reassignment on Remand

Text: Lastly, Mendez asks that we reassign this case to a different judge on remand, a remedy she concedes is warranted only under unusual circumstances. United States v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co., Inc., 785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam). We have authority to reassign as an exercise of our inherent authority and authority under statute, and may reassign even in the absence of any actual bias on the part of the judge who first heard the case. See id. at 779-80. The factors we consider in reassigning a case are (1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously[ ] expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness. Id. at 779 (internal quotation marks omitted). None of these factors justifies reassignment here. As is indicated by these three consolidated cases, Mendez disagreed with a number of the district court's rulings, but this is hardly uncommon over the course of lengthy litigation and trial. Because there are no unusual circumstances warranting reassignment, we see no reason to remand to a different judge.