Opinion ID: 2720085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Recusal and Undisclosed Conflict

Text: In the alternative, Hill contends that because the second district judge recused himself two months after his only substantive ruling, and because no 8 Case: 13-10939 Document: 00512741186 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/21/2014 No. 13-10939 new parties or causes of action were added, the judge’s conflict existed at the time of his order. Hill argues that we should remand the case because his recusal following his substantive order meant that he made his ruling under an “undisclosed conflict.” We disagree. First, Hill does not even attempt to identify what the conflict could be, or why we should doubt the validity of his order. He recused himself sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4), and followed the standard practice of not disclosing his reason for recusal. We decline Hill’s invitation to speculate as to why the judge recused himself, and when his “undisclosed conflict” first arose. Second, “we do not automatically vacate the rulings issued after [the judge] should have recused himself.” Patterson, 335 F.3d at 485. Even if the district judge was operating under a conflict, it still would not have an effect on the denial of Hill’s motion because two judges prior to him had issued the same order.