Jeffrey L. Clemens v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, United States of America, Real Party in Interest

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the other judges in a district were not required to recuse themselves when three of their colleagues were threatened by the defendant based on their handling of the defendant's pro se cases
• holding that the other judges in a district were not re‐ quired to recuse themselves when three of their colleagues were threatened by the defendant based on their handling of the defendant’s pro se cases
• finding that speculation about a judge’s personal 9 relationships is not a basis for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455
• explaining that rumor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion, and similar non-factual matters are not enough to merit recusal
• noting that prior adverse rulings are insufficient to require a § 455(a) recusal
• noting that a reasonable person is not a “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious 9 person” and that disqualification is generally based on more than “[r]umor, speculation, beliefs, 10 conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion, and similar non-factual matters”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).