Opinion ID: 4518690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bias of ALJ Colon

Text: A presumption exists that judicial and quasi-judicial officers such as ALJs are unbiased. Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982). That presumption can be rebutted by showing a conflict of interest or some other specific reason 2 Case: 19-11928 Date Filed: 03/23/2020 Page: 3 of 14 warranting the ALJ’s disqualification. Id. The party asserting a disqualifying interest bears the burden of establishing its existence. Id. at 196. Bias is shown where an objective, fully-informed lay person would have significant doubt about a judge’s impartiality. In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2008). Generally, bias sufficient to disqualify a judge must stem from an extrajudicial source, except where a judge’s remarks in a judicial context show such pervasive bias and prejudice that it constitutes bias against a party. Id. at 1310–11. Judicial rulings, routine administrative efforts, and ordinary admonishments (whether or not legally supportable) to counsel and witnesses that occur during the course of judicial proceedings that neither rely upon knowledge acquired outside of such proceedings nor display a deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism rendering fair judgment impossible are inadequate grounds for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 556 (1994). The record does not support Meade’s claim that ALJ Colon was biased or prejudiced against her. Although Meade argues ALJ Colon’s bias was shown by her refusal to provide an evidentiary hearing in 2014, as ordered by the Appeals Council on remand, Meade offers no evidence in support of her claim that ALJ Colon willfully misread § I-3-7-40(E) of the Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation and Law Manual. To the extent Meade asserts ALJ Colon’s 2017 decision is indicative of bias based on her discussion and interpretation of the evidence, an unfavorable 3 Case: 19-11928 Date Filed: 03/23/2020 Page: 4 of 14 judicial decision is not indicative of bias without other evidence of bias. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 556. Similarly, Meade’s SSA Office of Disability Adjudication and Review’s Division of Quality Service complaint about ALJ Colon, which arose out of Meade’s administrative proceedings, was an inadequate basis for recusal absent extrajudicial sources of bias or other evidence of antagonism. Id.; In re Walker, 532 F.3d at 1310. Meade has not cited any overt, pervasive statements by ALJ Colon indicating she was biased against Meade, nor has Meade offered an extrajudicial reason for ALJ Colon’s alleged bias or prejudice against her. Accordingly, because Meade cannot show an objective, fully-informed lay person would have significant doubt about ALJ Colon’s impartiality in the absence of such evidence, we affirm the district court’s denial of Meade’s bias claim.