Document: 486 U.S. 847 108 S.Ct. 2194 100 L.Ed.2d 855 John A. LILJEBERG, Jr., Petitionerv.HEALTH SERVICES ACQUISITION CORP. No. 86-957. Argued Dec. 9, 1987. Reargued April 25, 1988. Decided June 17, Syllabus In 1977, pursuant to a plan construct and operate hospital in Kenner, Louisiana, petitioner formed corporation (St. Jude) apply for the necessary state "certificate of need." During next two years negotiated with Loyola University over proposal purchase as site portion Loyola's Kenner land several million dollars, coupled rezone adjoining greatly increase its value. Federal District Court Judge Robert Collins was member, regularly attended meetings, Board Trustees, whose minutes indicated regular discussions negotiations' progress reflected fact that interest project dependent on issuance certificate. Petitioner also conducted negotiations respondent's corporate predecessor Hospital Affiliates International (HAI), culminating HAI's not owned by filing certificate application upon petitioner's execution an agreement which HAI believed gave it title St. Jude. After issued Jude's name, dispute between arose ownership, reopen discussed formally approved at Board's meeting November 12, 1981, attended. On 30, respondent filed suit seeking declaration ownership Collins, sitting without jury, tried case January 21 22, 1982, immediately announcing his intention rule petitioner. 28, did attend, terms sale petitioner, provided, inter alia, would be void if failed satisfy certain conditions, fulfillment depended retention control read until March 24, 1982. meantime, 16, he entered judgment crediting version crucial, disputed conversations. Ten months after Appeals affirmed judgment, respondent, having just learned associated while were engaged concerning site, moved Rule Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) vacate ground disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). denied motion, but reversed remanded different judge, who motion that, although evidence rise appearance impropriety, lacked actual knowledge litigation during trial prior judgment. The again reversed, ruling impropriety is sufficient disqualification Moreover, court ruled vacatur appropriate remedy these circumstances. Held: 1. A violation 455(a)—which requires judge disqualify himself any proceeding impartiality might reasonably questioned—is established when reasonable person, knowing relevant facts, expect knew circumstances creating partiality, notwithstanding finding actually conscious those To require scienter element 455(a) contravene section's language purpose promoting public confidence integrity judicial system. This reading does judges perform impossible disqualifying themselves based facts they do know, since, proper cases, provision can applied retroactively rectify oversight once concludes "his questioned." Here, where both lower courts found ample basis record concluding objective observer have questioned Collins' impartiality, failure plain even though initially product temporary lapse memory. Pp. 858-862. 2. Vacatur this case. determining whether 60(b)(6)—which gives federal broad authority grant relief from final "upon such are just," provided made within time—it consider risk injustice particular parties, denial will produce other undermining public's process. despite lack trial, participation created strong particularly light attendance including one financial importance Loyola; attend or before entering judgment; inexcusable recuse disclose still had time file new-trial use issue direct appeal; acknowledge, denying vacate, known about shortly indicate awareness duty here may, fact, prompt more carefully search grounds. Furthermore, careful study merits underlying suggests there greater unfairness upholding than allowing new neither nor has showing special hardship reason their reliance original Finally, 10-month delay normally foreclose violation, excusable since entirely attributable conduct. 862-870. 796 F.2d (CA5 1986), affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting opinion, WHITE SCALIA, joined, post, p. 870. O'CONNOR, 874. H. Bartow Farr, III, Washington, D.C., William M. Lucas, respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 1974 Congress amended Judicial Code "to broaden clarify grounds disqualification." 88 Stat. 1609. first sentence amendment provides: "Any justice, magistrate United States shall amended. 2 present case, Fifth Circuit concluded question become final, determined court's We granted certiorari construction well remedial decision. 480 915, 107 1368, 94 684 (1987). now affirm. 3 * Health Services Acquisition Corp. brought action against Liljeberg, Jude Louisiana Jude). jury. Liljeberg and, dissent, Approximately 10 later, been member Trustees negotiating parcel hospital. success benefit turned, large part, prevailing Collins. 4 Based information, heard favor Liljeberg. appealed. resolution required factual findings extent timing declaratory litigation. Accordingly, panel matter findings. App. Pet. Cert. 40a. remand, meetings 1980 1981. further concluded, however, forgotten came reviewed materials sent him prepare upcoming meeting. At time—just few days 10-day period allowed trial—Judge obtained thus nonetheless impropriety. However, Appeals' mandate limited knowledge, compelled deny 60(b) motion. 14a. 5 reversed. noted should renewed.1 regardless "a remember some dealings seek ascertain nature dealings." 796, 803 (1986). Such view Appeals, Although recognizing caution vacated becoming partiality convincingly promptly possible, Because issues presented largely turn give relate sequence substance events detail. II 6 Petitioner, pharmacist, promoter, half-owner Axel Realty, Inc., real estate brokerage firm. 1976, became interested suburb New Orleans. addition providing community needed health care facilities, hoped obtain commission Realty exclusive right provide pharmaceutical services successful operation acquisition need" State Louisiana; qualify reimbursement payments medicare medicaid programs.2 October 1979, Jude, intending need time. 7 serious least major parties. One set involved tract property. proposed benefits included only proceeds itself, amounting substantial value rezoned reported University's Real Estate Committee meetings. need.3 8 conducting predecessor, national management company. summer 1980, reached principle, outlining respective roles developing contemplated (not University) land; need; retain consultant various capacities. turn, understood transfer HAI. Pursuant preliminary agreement, documents executed, owner $5 place $500,000 escrow. addition, agreed receive $250,000 locating Eventually, signed "warranty indemnity agreement," warranty signed, need. 9 August 26, He advised HAI,4 paid Realty. arose, contended Jude—and hence, need—was conditioned reaching continued project. contention supported written instrument. unwritten understanding insisted virtue sole year. Respondent complaint close evidence, announced intended ruling, (dated 1982) conclusions law. credited Liljeberg's oral conversations critical ruling.5 11 trustee University, then project, conclusion controlled determine "might questioned," lawsuit filed, what happened pending him, 12 issued, embroiled dispute, reopened University. 29, report each trustees, advising them significant change" stating specifically property "again prime location." 72. submitted draft authorizing vice president continue developers Hospital." Id., 73. attended, trustees connection rezoning adopted Committee's resolution. Thus, potential filed. 13 While sell 80 acres $6,694,000. meeting, "the awarded Corporation." 37. Presumably advice comment hearing week earlier, because thought "it unfair keep parties doubt how I feel case." 41a. 14 formal apparently executed 19. 50-58. stated way "pending Eastern . involving obtaining [Liljeberg] Certificate Need," id., 55, repurchase contract price satisfactory year nullification event accomplished. active outcome unlikely could build lost moreover, project.6 15 details transaction three letters dated 15, 19, examine acquired As correctly held, "Judge recused 24." F.2d, 801. 16 considering properly we address questions. must violated second, available discovered final. III 17 Title 455 provides part:7 18 "(a) Any questioned. 19 "(b) following circumstances: 20 "(4) knows he, individually fiduciary, spouse minor child residing household, subject controversy party proceeding, substantially affected proceeding. 22 23 "(c) inform personal fiduciary interests, make effort interests children household." 24 Scienter judge's circumstance may bear remedy, eliminate questioned" persons. know simply ignoring provision—which makes no mention knowledge—but subsection (b)(4)—which expressly her extraneous. subsections clear (b)(4) (a).8 advancement provision—to promote process, see S.Rep. 93-419, (1973); H.R.Rep. 93-1453, (1974)—does depend so long believe she knew. Chief Clark explained: 25 "The goal section avoid partiality. If appear person exists recall pure heart incorruptible. forgetfulness, sort objectively ascertainable Hall v. Small Business Administration, 695 175, 179 (5th Cir.1983). Under 455(a), therefore, recusal lacks indicating bias all circumstances, knowledge." 802. 26 Contrary contentions, statute call impossible—to know. If, argues, prospectively, requiring course absurd; never expected perhaps people suspect But also, retroactively, called feat. Rather, take steps maintain judiciary. find violated. certainly task. No questions finally realized initial appeal taken aware requisite knowledge. 27 impartiality. memory, nevertheless statute. statutory occurred not, end our inquiry. areas law, surely room harmless error committed busy inadvertently overlook circumstance.9 There draconian every It equally wrong, adopt absolute prohibition cases forgetful judges. IV 29 defines judges, prescribes prohibits duty. wisely delegated judiciary task fashioning remedies best serve legislation. appropriate, mind many cases—and example—the better position evaluate significance Its afforded due consideration. review demonstrates determination order supported. 30 Section own, authorize reopening closed recognized, Rules procedure whereby, relieved judgment.10 particular, 60(b)(6), relies, grants relieve premised enumerated clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).11 particularize factors justify relief, previously "adequate enable judgments whenever accomplish justice," Klapprott States, 335 601, 614-615, 69 384, 390, 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949), cautioning "extraordinary circumstances," Ackermann 340 193, 71 209, 95 207 (1950). accordingly categorically unavailable violations. conclude continuously high function 'justice justice.' " re Murchison, 349 133, 136, 75 623, 625, 99 942 (1955) (citation omitted). 31 Like accept Court's being precious When concentrates full attention concerns easily forgotten. problem, served bench often too willing indulge suspicions doubts judges.12 very avoiding possible. See 5; 5. critically important kind identify cause four facts. 32 First, remarkable completely forgot constructed Kenner. 80-acre parcel, represented 40% entire sold $6,694,000 remaining 60%. "negotiations Hospital" discussion 35. 33 Second, unfortunate coincidence 2-day advisement. representatives monitored fit obvious conflict resulted preside trial. These mailed opened envelope received 16.13 34 Third, remarkable—and quite inexcusable—that disclosure removed questioning possible decide interests—and appearance—of justice retrial. Another evidentiary less burdensome embarrassing protracted proceedings nonrecusal nondisclosure. noted, constituted 455(b)(4), disqualifies "knows proceeding." separate compels remedy; silence, deprived making timely appeal.14 35 Fourth, reasons motion,15 acknowledge Nor 36 create precisely prevent. insubstantial excusable. litigation, known. stay informed constitute 455. 455(c). cases; contrary, willingness enforce prevent substantive future encouraging litigant discovered. therefore unless said request otherwise deprive 37 focus fairness litigants, Rubin's analysis fresh look issues.16 judgment.17 affirmance 1982; disclosed time, entry guiding consideration administration disinterested fact." Public Utilities Comm'n D.C. Pollak, 343 451, 466-467, 72 813, 822-823, 96 1068 (1952) (Frankfurter, chambers). sum, Clark's reflects eminently sound wise disposition 38 39 Affirmed. 40 whom SCALIA join, dissenting. 41 decision ethics abstract, short workable rules finds used himself. broadens standard overturning 60(b). results odds scope 60(b), likely considerable mischief attempt them, dissent. 42 detailed "[a]ny revised conform recently Canon 3C American Bar Association's Conduct (1974). Previously, proceedings, "in opinion" improper hear case.1 Subsection (a) drafted replace subjective old test. process instructing confronted doubted, allow another case.2 effect removing so-called "duty sit," accepted gloss existing statute.3 43 (b) sets forth particularized situations provisions 455(b) remove closely connected participation. (b)(4), example, jurist spouse, controversy. Unlike open-ended (a), specific phrased suggest requirement 44 obviously matters deciding given holds, below, disqualification, them. tenable (a). necessarily bearing hold posit conundrum decipherable ordinary mortals. concept "constructive knowledge" useful think imported into 45 direction Schwartz lawsuit. ante, 851. involvement Not preparation petitioners Loyola. 46 Despite determination, subject, "public judiciary" retroactive interprets manner intended. drafting concerned "appearance" changed previous one; longer decided question, think. short, unquestionably (b), adhere slide off speculative "constructive" 47 compounds aside authorizes district court, just, order, "reason justifying judgment." repeatedly instructed truly circumstances" permit successfully invoke "any reason" clause 613, 389, (1949); 199, 212, strict interpretation essential finality preserved. 48 For accepts proposition permits constructive place, beyond cavil stood gain transactions tie rather subcommittees, subcommittee, entity responsible Monroe Tract. almost limitation, argument elapsed weigh heavily most important, rulings knowledge.4 subjected himself, majority's unwarranted. 49 50 ----, agree cannot remains entitled apart Circuit, "relief Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 60(b)(6); (1950); (1949). collects impressive array arguments support granting addressed instance below. remand instructions. permeated declined expiration motions. 1320a-1 (1982 ed. Supp. IV). "[w]ithout reimbursement, impractical (if impossible) hospital." 58a, n. found: "Discussions Plaintiff's Exhibit 22. offer behalf Properties approximately report, summarized minutes. include response expression continuing Properties. reflect communication 'until forthcoming, project.' outline second raising $7,000.00 per acre, 'with financing commitments except dedication 110 feet roadway purposes, improvement cost totally group.' elaborate offer, Properties' desire sixty day secure finalize sale." 19a-20a. Coincidentally, Corporation America merger Corporation, subsidiary America. convenience, describe attorney testified returning copy HAI, told associate counsel binding conversation occurred. 61a, 3. noting conflicting testimony, held abuse discretion awarding Rubin, pointed example fact. cover letter stated: "I document effecting transfer." 60a, testified, transmittal. Yet, Rubin observed: "It curious lawyer fail comes attached document. curiouser, Alice said, passed looking glass Wonderland, distrusted complex potentially lucrative relationship corporation, designed seven-year period, respond letter. curiouser [Liljeberg's attorney], letter, Warranty Indemnity Agreement 'ownership.' 75a, 4. out: terminated 1982 clearly erroneous. contingent lawsuit, practical approval. Without certificate, able extremely shown built. Tract surrounding vital Therefore, terminate 800-801 Prior amendments, provided: interest, counsel, material witness, related render improper, sit appeal, therein." (1970 ed.). ABA Conduct, pp. 1-2 (1974), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, 6351. general replacing 5, 6355. contends construed 455(b)(4). argues reference 455(b)(4) indicates well. catchall provision, encompassing 455(b), specified. view, meaningless always circumvented moving 455(b). Petitioner's ignores differences (b)(4). Most importantly, creates 455(d)(4); Cement Concrete Litigation, 515 F.Supp. 1076 (Ariz.1981), mandamus denied, 688 1297 (CA9 1982), aff'd absence quorum, Arizona 459 1191, 103 1173, 425 (1983). 455(e) specifies waiver somewhat stricter redundant broader coverage posits. Large, multidistrict class actions, unique difficulties monitoring familiarize herself named members class, extreme number hundreds thousands. already difficult compounded precise contours defined Union Carbide Cutting Service, 782 710, 714 (CA7 1986); Antitrust F.Supp., 1080. Of course, size complexity remain preside. conflict, extraordinary analysis. part: "On party's legal representative reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, neglect; (2) newly diligence move 59(b); (3) fraud ., misrepresentation, misconduct adverse party; (6) (1), (2), taken." 613 "not avail 'any reason' 60(b)" specified (1)—"mistake, surprise neglect." bring "other circumvent 1-year limitations applies (1). logic, extends (5) mutually exclusive. C. Wright Miller, Practice 2864 (1973). (6). infra, ---- - ----. importance, neglect chargeable Had association renewed, raised reopened. unusual step reviewing forms—which reveal Trustees—the attention. service latter apparent examination reports according decided. Aetna Life Ins. Co. Lavoie, 475 106 1580, 89 823 (1986), concern constitutional dimensions. wrote: "We Embry's appellant's rights explicated Tumey [v. Ohio, 273 510, 437, 749 (1927) ], Ward Village Monroeville, 409 57, 80, 267 (1972) ]. Embry influenced, Supreme Alabama ' "would temptation average [judge] [to] lead balance nice, true." Due Process Clause 'may sometimes bar scales contending way, "justice justice." 825, 1587 (citations judge—faced passing fellow bench—that colleague merely possessed significantly quell skeptic. remarkable. earlier need, recites "this upon" 55. retained unable go forward arguably, precluded going wanted unconditional, omitted An why felt clause. note divided panel. majority relied extensively deference late additional decision, realm swayed. "First, non-profit, educational institution, [inuring] institution individual personally. significantly, either Executive Committees Trustees. transactions." 50a. unpublished expressed "Liljeberg's chicanery," 78a, estoppel "Whether consciously mislead decide. His sign return 'ownership' "HAI misled silence doing done: witnesses company wholly corporation; policy.8" 76a-77a. point, inserted footnote: "8 That face application. described 'wholly-owned subsidiary.' Indeed, 407-page devoted describing hospitals, experience, assets. name appears intent July, Agreement. registered agent, demonstrating belief Jude." 77a, 8. continued: "Therefore, estop claiming conjunction Douglas' enclosing documents, deception there, rest alone. "Liljeberg 1981 (plus interest) 1122 requested commission, which, paid, amounted $271,000. relieving (HCA), successor, $271,000, mentioned 'owned' buying HCA justifiably paying commission." 77a-78a. settled. 31, 1983, weeks Circuit's affirming agencies. alleges improperly instead Gussinger, Action 83-3031 (ED La.). pending. statute, part 60 years, "§ Interest judge. Bloom, Bias Financial Grounds Disqualification Judges, Case W.Res.L.Rev. 662, 670-676 (1985); Comment, Judges Prejudice, U.Chi.L.Rev. 236, 238-242 (1978). guidance recusing 144 supplies opportunity affidavit prejudice disqualification. troubling hypothetical situations, demonstrate inherent Suppose Doe sits X Y Corp., appeal. officials learn unbeknownst shares stock Even independent Corp.'s "appearance impartiality" deemed satisfied. result adversely affect placed inhibit developments finality.

Category: 3