Opinion ID: 2569176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Commission Recusal

Text: Respondent next takes issue with the Commission's failure to recuse itself from hearing his case. He also suggests there is no mechanism by which a sitting judge may seek disqualification of any panel member on the Commission. On March 4, 1999, Respondent orally moved for the entire Commission to recuse itself from hearing the complaints against him. The Commission denied Respondent's oral motion on April 7, 1999. On May 14, 1999, Respondent made a second motion asking the Commission to recuse, this time in writing and with Respondent's supporting affidavit attached. Respondent sought recusal, contending the Commission could not afford him a fair and impartial hearing. The Commission again denied his motion. We also denied the motion as premature. Respondent renews his motion in this appeal. Respondent's supporting affidavit either concerns accusations against the Examiner or adverse rulings by the Commission. Although Respondent alleges bias, none of the complaints in his affidavit show that the Commission as a whole, or its individual members, are biased against him. Nor have individual Commission members expressed a bias. On the contrary, during the proceedings, the Commission made significant rulings in favor of Respondent. First, the Commission sustained Respondent's objection to the Examiner's discovery requests for admissions and interrogatories. Respondent was not required to supply the requested written information to the Examiner. Second, the Commission accepted Respondent's proposal to dismiss the allegation of failure to cooperate in the Commission's investigation in Docket 652 (the cease and desist order). The Commission considered Respondent's claim of bias and rejected the claim, saying: [T]he Commission notes that `judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.' Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994) (citing United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583, 86 S. Ct. 1698, 1710 (1966); cf. Logan v. Logan, 23 Kan. App.2d 920, 931-32 (1997) (`Previous rulings of a trial judge, although numerous and erroneous, are not alone sufficient to show the required bias or prejudice to disqualify a judge....' (quoting State ex rel. Miller v. Richardson, 229 Kan. 234, 238 [1981]). Indeed, without other comments or stated opinion by the adjudicator, `[rulings] cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest of circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required... when no extrajudicial source is involved.' Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555, 114 S. Ct. at 1157. While the Respondent draws attention to some rulings from the previous proceeding that were contrary to his wishes, including the denial of a motion to dismiss and the decision to admonish the Respondent, he does not aver any facts to demonstrate that the Commission relied on extrajudicial information, nor does he cite to any comments or stated opinions made by members of the Commission to demonstrate that inappropriate favoritism so permeated the proceedings as to deny him a fair proceeding.... Thus, with respect to the proceedings in Docket Number 612 [the Campbell incarceration], the Respondent has failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the Commission is unfavorably predisposed against him. The Commission's reasoning is sound. Respondent fails to show bias or prejudice by the Commission requiring recusal. As a general rule, bias or prejudice that is caused by occurrences in the context of a court proceeding is not grounds for disqualification. Shaman, Lubet & Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics § 4.05 (3d ed. 2000). With respect to Respondent's complaint that there is no formal procedure for seeking disqualification of the Commission members, it is important to note that there has been no suggestion Respondent could not seek disqualification. In fact, the Commission considered and denied his request on the merits. We have also addressed the issue on the merits. The Commission did not err in refusing to disqualify itself.