Opinion ID: 787272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantive Rulings

Text: 46 The rulings about which Focus complains include: the bankruptcy judge's appointment of an interim trustee; her refusal to order the trustee to pay Focus' attorney's fees and costs out of the estate; discovery sanctions she imposed on Focus; and her failure to sanction the petitioning creditors. Notwithstanding Focus' complaints, 47 judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves ( i.e., apart from surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required ... when no extrajudicial source is involved. 48 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (internal citation omitted). 49 Here, Focus has not shown that the bankruptcy court's substantive rulings were products of deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that [made] fair judgment impossible. Id. Rather, Focus argues that these rulings were erroneous and that such error is itself evidence of bias. This argument does not support a recusal motion. Judges are known to make procedural and even substantive errors on occasion. The errors alleged here would be the basis for appeal, not recusal. F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1145 (9th Cir.2001).