Gage v. Midwestern University

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ian Gage, No. CV-19-02745-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Midwestern University, 13 Defendant.

16 Before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Ian Gage asking the undersigned to recuse himself from this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b). (Doc. 104.) Recusal decisions are within the trial judge’s sound discretion. United States v. Wilensky, 757 F.2d 19 594, 599-600 (3d Cir. 1985). Section 455 provides that a judge shall recuse under a variety of circumstances, including (as relevant to Mr. Gage’s motion) if the judge has a personal bias or prejudice towards a party or if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The alleged bias “must stem from an extrajudicial source and not be based solely on information gained in the course of the proceedings.” Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1045- 46 (9th Cir. 1988). Moreover, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (internal citations omitted).

27 Mr. Gage’s allegations of bias and impartiality appear to be based on rulings the undersigned has made in this case with which Mr. Gage disagrees, some of which have || been reversed on appeal. Though Mr. Gage might be dissatisfied with the undersigned’s rulings, the mere fact that the undersigned has issued adverse rulings, including some that || have been reversed on appeal, is not evidence of bias or impropriety justifying recusal. The 4|| appeals system exists because judges are not infallible. Making an incorrect ruling is not || the same as demonstrating bias or impartiality. Sometimes judges get it wrong, but those || mistakes do not mean judges are not doing their level best to faithfully apply the law. And, in his rulings in this case, the undersigned has done and will continue to do his level best || to faithfully apply the law.

9 IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Gage’s recusal motion (Doc. 104) is DENIED.

10 Dated this 7th day of April, 2025.

13 {Z, 14 _- {UO 15 Soe United States District Judge _2-