Opinion ID: 3031161
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellants’ Motion for Recusal

Text: 3 The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion for recusal. Recusal motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 733 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). “An abuse of discretion is a plain error, discretion exercised to an end not justified by the evidence, a judgment that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts as are found.” Rabkin v. Or. Health Scis. Univ., 350 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Furthermore, we cannot reverse the district court “unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing the relevant factors.” SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 2001). Recusal is appropriate when a judge has “a personal bias or prejudice” against a party, 28 U.S.C. §144, the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or the judge has “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Appellants only speculate that, because Judge Hogan was also involved as a mediator in a related bankruptcy proceeding, he cannot act impartially in this matter. There is no authority for the proposition that judges must recuse themselves if they served as mediators in a related proceeding. 4 In reaching this result, we assume—without finding—that Appellants had standing to bring this motion below and that this panel has pendant jurisdiction to rule on this motion as part of this interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction.