Vent v. Fletcher
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Kristen Vent, proceeding pro se, moved to recuse the district judge based on an alleged interest in FTX without providing any supporting facts. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege facts that would lead a reasonable observer to question the judge's impartiality.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Recuse Denied“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the objective 'reasonable observer' standard for judicial recusal. The order explicitly notes that the plaintiff offered no allegations regarding how FTX is involved in the case and failed to provide any facts supporting recusal. Under the standard cited, a motion to recuse must be supported by specific facts; a bare assertion of a judge's interest in a third-party entity, without connecting that interest to the case or the judge's conduct, is insufficient to warrant recusal. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and legally sufficient for a pro se motion to recuse. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard from Ninth Circuit precedent and applies it to the specific deficiency in the plaintiff's filing (lack of factual allegations). While the order is brief, it contains all necessary elements: the motion, the legal standard, the factual finding (or lack thereof), and the conclusion. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this type of procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTEN VENT, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01651-RBM-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO RECUSE THE UNDERSIGNED 14 NATHAN FLETCHER, et al., 15 Defendants.
16 [Doc. 9] 17 18 On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff Kristen Vent, proceeding pro se, filed a “request for 19 recusal” to the extent that either the district or magistrate judge has any interest in “FTX.” 20 (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff has offered no allegations as to how FTX is involved in the instant case. 21 In any event, Plaintiff’s motion lacks any allegations which support recusal of the 22 undersigned at this time. Plaintiff has not come forward with any facts that would lead a 23 reasonable observer “with knowledge of all the facts [to] conclude that the judge’s 24 impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 25 891 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, 26 Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||DATE: January 24, 2023 3 eh Bsmudes, MA ities D_ 4 HON: RUTH BERMUDEZ'MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28