Court Opinion

ID: 9478129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:41:00.837076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:15.562103
License: Public Domain

BOGGS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The court finds two separate reasons for reversing the jury’s verdict of no cause of action against Ford Motor Company in this race discrimination suit by Madison Anderson:
(1) the district court abused its discretion in refusing plaintiff a further continuance to allow additional time to procure a third attorney, where trial occurred 55 days after his previous attorney had withdrawn, and 47 days after a trial date was set; and,
(2) the district judge, in any event, “exhibit[ed] such open hostility and bias” toward plaintiff in a hearing on a pre-trial motion of counsel to withdraw as to disqualify him from sitting.
I respectfully disagree with both of these holdings. While the district judge’s actions may well have been less than charitable, the law in this Circuit does not support a holding that the judge went beyond the bounds of what is permissible for a trial judge in exercising discretion. I do not believe that any possible attractiveness of the current plaintiff or his case justifies our reversing the district judge because we might have acted differently were we in his shoes.
I
The charge of bias and hostility is particularly disturbing to any judge. In our case, the district judge had been asked by both sides to attempt a settlement. He did so, to the best of his ability. A settlement offer from the plaintiffs was on the table, *750and it was the judge’s opinion that it should be accepted. Apparently that was also the opinion of one or both of plaintiffs previous retained counsel, and the plaintiff’s unwillingness to accept the settlement was the cause of the withdrawal of the second counsel.
The proceedings which were quoted so extensively in the court’s opinion occurred out of the presence of any jury and long before the actual jury trial took place. It is true that the district judge “talked turkey” to the defendant, in a manner perhaps more suitable to vigorous private advocacy than to public judicial demeanor. However, there is not the slightest hint from the record, nor allegation from the plaintiff, that the judge’s demeanor at the subsequent trial, nor any rulings he made there, were in any way influenced by or reflective of the incident some two months earlier.
It is particularly relevant that the matters complained of here took place in the course of settlement proceedings. This distinction was very well covered in the case of Fong v. American Airlines, Inc., 431 F.Supp. 1334 (N.D.Cal.1977), in which a motion for disqualification was denied. There the court stated:
If comments made by a court in the course of pretrial proceedings, based on matters disclosed by the case file at that time were regarded as extrajudicial, the court’s ability to promote the settlement of civil litigation would be crippled. Judicial intervention in the settlement process, even if not universally favored or practiced, is an absolute necessity in the federal judicial system, burdened as it is by a staggering and ever-growing case load.
To subject judges to the risk of disqualification on the basis of statements of this kind would jeopardize their effectiveness as catalysts in the settlement process.
431 F.Supp. at 1338-39 (footnote omitted).
See also Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 287 (3rd Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 999, 101 S.Ct. 1704, 68 L.Ed.2d 200 (1981); In re Turner, 69 B.R. 95 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1987).
This case differs from the actions of district judges all over the country in attempting the settlement of thousands of cases, only in that it occurred in a public session on the record. I simply fail to see that the vigorous expression of opinion as to the desirability of a settlement and as to the possible future course of events (essentially borne out by the facts) subjects a trial judge, as a matter of law, to indictment and conviction by this court on the charge of bias and hostility.
In particular, it should be the essence of the function of a judge to be able to concentrate on the matter at hand and not allow distractions of personal, social or political feelings to interfere. There is no evidence that the district judge did not do so in the trial of this case.
In virtually all of the major cases cited by the court, the conduct that displayed hostility and bias occurred during the actual trial. Thus, Knapp v. Kinsey, 232 F.2d 458 (6th Cir.1956), emphasized the judge’s courtroom expressions, although it did also note the judge’s attack on the well-respected general counsel of the SEC (and now Senior United States Circuit Judge), William H. Timbers, holding him in contempt and placing him custody of the U.S. Marshals.
In the case of U.S. v. Frazier, 584 F.2d 790, 794 (6th Cir.1978), the court emphasized trial demeanor, quoting with approval our statement in Frantz v. U.S., 62 F.2d 737, 739 (6th Cir.1933), that a judge should “avoid all appearance of advocacy as to those questions which are ultimately to be submitted to the jury.” (emphasis added). This was certainly done in this case.
Also, certainly nothing that occurred here approached the pretrial expressions by the judge that led to reversal in Nicodemus v. Chrysler Corp., 596 F.2d 152 (6th Cir.1979). During a preliminary injunction hearing, the judge referred to the defendants as follows: “This thing is most transparent and the most blatant attempt to intimidate witnesses and parties that I have seen in a long time. I don’t believe any*751thing that anybody from Chrysler tells me_ They’re a bunch of villains ... and I don’t intend to put up with it.” 596 F.2d at 155. He also stated his doubts as to his ability to conduct future matters impartially: “I shall do my best not to allow myself to be swayed by the episodes that have been brought before me today, although there is no particular reason why under the law I should.” 596 F.2d at 156.
Other examples of conduct at trial similar to our situation where reversal was not warranted include: Jaffe v. Grant, 793 F.2d 1182 (11th Cir.1986); Wiley v. Wainwright, 793 F.2d 1190 (11th Cir.1986); Watson v. Miears, 772 F.2d 433 (8th Cir.1985) (no bias in warning counsel of consequences of failure to comply with discovery orders). Even in the cases involving conduct at trial, it is clear that “[t]he alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge has learned from his participation in the case.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 1710, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966). Accord, In re International Business Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 927 (2d Cir.1980); First National Monetary Corp. v. Weinberger, 819 F.2d 1334, 1337 (6th Cir.1987).
As noted in United States v. Story, 716 F.2d 1088, 1090 (6th Cir.1983), the word “bias” can be used in two ways:
The bias must be personal, not judicial. It must arise “ ‘out of the judge’s background and association’ and not from the ‘judge’s view of the law.’ ” United States v. Story, 716 F.2d 1088, 1090 (6th Cir.1983) (quoting Oliver v. Michigan State Board of Education, 508 F.2d 178, 180 (6th Cir.1974), cert denied, 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975)).
There is not the slightest indication that any bias in this case came from the Judge’s background outside of the case and thus was “personal” in the context of the above opinions. See also United States v. Porter, 701 F.2d 1158, 1166 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1007, 104 S.Ct. 524, 78 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (“Impressions based on information gained in the proceedings are not grounds for disqualification in the absence of pervasive bias.”).
Mere vigor of expression or firmness of view on particular points does not render a judge incapable of giving a judicially unbiased opinion.1 It is my clear impression that the examination of any month’s worth of transcripts of the arguments in this Circuit would reveal at least one and probably more instances of judges expressing their displeasure with those before them in terms no less vigorous than did Judge Cohn in this case. I fear that this precedent of disqualification of a judge for “bias and hostility” because of such vigorous expression is one that would not bear extension throughout our domain.
Finally, I believe the court’s opinion, at page 12, overstates the importance of litigant’s subjective belief that they have received a fair trial. The court states: “Not only must litigants actually receive a fair trial, they must also believe that they have been given a fair trial.” Rather, our system rests on an objective standard of whether a fair trial occurred. See, e.g., In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1987); United States v. Greenough, 782 F.2d 1556, 1559 (11th Cir.1986). I know of no precedents overturning the results of trials because losing litigants did not think the trial was fair. While there may be some saintly litigants who believe they received a fair trial even after losing, I do not doubt that such litigants are rare.
II
As to the denial of a continuance, we have here a matter which is quintessentially within a district judge’s discretion. The constitutional law, and our cases, are quite clear on this point. A civil plaintiff has no right to appointed counsel. Plaintiff has a right to a counsel, if he can procure one, and a trial court may not prevent the appearance of such counsel. However, the trial judge is not required to wait any par*752ticular period of time while a party attempts to procure one.
In this case, plaintiff had previously retained two separate counsel. The case had been pending for over 4 years, and for well over a year after a remand by this court following a first trial. At the time plaintiff’s retained counsel sought to withdraw, a trial date had been set, only 2 days in the future,
A plaintiff has no particular right to abort a trial immediately before it is scheduled to commence simply because of the absence of counsel. Several steps were open to the district court:
1. he could have denied the counsel permission to withdraw;
2. he could have proceeded to an immediate trial on the date scheduled, with or without counsel; or
3. he could have postponed the trial, allowing the plaintiff additional time to procure counsel.
Without intimating whether there would have been any abuse of discretion had the judge chosen one of the first two options, in these circumstances, the last option is what in fact happened.
Despite the judge’s statements at the December 2 hearing that the trial would start just as soon as possible, which would have left the plaintiff with an uncertain and indeterminate time to procure counsel (though it would in any event have behooved him to move as rapidly as possible), on December 10 the court set a specific trial date, which was 41 days in the future from the time it was set, and 49 days from the initial hearing. This was considerably more than the 25 days that Anderson asked for.
The court’s opinion declares (at page 17) that counsel for appellant “conceded” that the case “would have proceeded to trial” earlier than scheduled, if the court’s calendar had cleared. After reviewing the record of oral argument, I cannot agree with that characterization. In the exchanges on this point at oral argument, all the counsel conceded, as was also pointed out by members of the panel, was that it would have been within the Judge’s power to issue an order advancing the announced trial date, and that “it has happened” that a trial date had been advanced in district court in Detroit. However, counsel did not concede that Judge Cohn’s purpose to have the trial at the earliest possible date, as stated on December 2, continued to prevail despite his later order setting a specific trial date.
Thus, the plaintiff definitely had an unencumbered period of at least 47 days in which to procure counsel for the trial.2 No case that I found, or that is cited by the court, has found an abuse of discretion where a civil plaintiff is given that length of time. The cases that have reversed denials of a continuance have generally involved requests for very brief periods of time. Thus, in United States v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 416 F.2d 1244 (6th Cir.1969), which the court cites, a judge was reversed for allowing only one week after an appellant was informed that a corporation could not prosecute a case pro se. In that very case, id. at 1245, this circuit noted other cases where “the courts granted reasonable continuances” including Shapiro, Bernstein and Co. v. Continental Record Co., 386 F.2d 426 (2d Cir.1967) (14 days); MacNeil v. Hearst Corp, 160 F.Supp. 157 (D.Del.1958) (30 days); Brandstein v. White Lamps, 20 F.Supp. 369 (S.D.N.Y.1937) (20 days). I would also note the criminal case of U.S. v. Mitchell, 744 F.2d 701, (9th Cir.1984) where granting only a 43-day continuance, when 57 days were requested, was not reversible error.
Other cases reversing denial of a continuance include in a criminal context, U.S. v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1523 (6th Cir.1985) (10 days not granted). The longest period deemed insufficient in a case I located is In re Estate of Rutherfurd, 304 So.2d 517, 521 (Fla.App.1974), where one month had been available to secure counsel in a very-hostile area but was deemed insufficient and further “reasonable time” was granted. Perhaps the closest case on point to our situation is Grunewald v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 331 F.2d 983 (8th Cir.1964) where Judge (now Justice) Black*753mun upheld a trial result when the plaintiff had asked for 90 days, and then for 60 to 90 days, and was actually given 57 days from the date of trial, and a final request for continuance was denied just before trial.
The only response plaintiff has made in these circumstances is that he could have procured counsel (according to the letter from James F. Finn) had the court been willing to grant another 60 days (presumably from the writing of that letter, dated 10 days before trial and 4 days before a hearing on the final motion for continuance). Thus, in order to escape this court’s censure and the reversal of this jury trial, the trial court would have been required to grant a total period of at least 100-plus days from the time the case had initially been set for trial and counsel had withdrawn. I know of no law that would support such a holding.
Despite the apparently “tough” attitude of the district court in attempting to bring this case to a resolution, I simply cannot see that its actions offended either any concept of “fundamental fairness,” nor any measure of specific protection to which civil parties are entitled. I therefore respectfully dissent.

. While vigor can be overdone, see K. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition 37 (1960) on the virtues of pungency.

. Jury impanelment apparently was set on January 20, along with Anderson’s final motion for a continuance. The trial actually began on January 26.