Gage v. Midwestern University

D. Arizona

Gage v. Midwestern University

DecidedApril 7, 2025

Docket2:19-cv-02745

StatusUnknown

This text of Gage v. Midwestern University (Gage v. Midwestern University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gage v. Midwestern University, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 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

11 v.

12 Midwestern University,

13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Ian Gage asking the undersigned to 17 recuse himself from this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b). (Doc. 104.) Recusal 18 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 20 of circumstances, including (as relevant to Mr. Gage’s motion) if the judge has a personal 21 bias or prejudice towards a party or if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The 22 alleged bias “must stem from an extrajudicial source and not be based solely on information 23 gained in the course of the proceedings.” Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1045- 24 46 (9th Cir. 1988). Moreover, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis 25 for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (internal 26 citations omitted). 27 Mr. Gage’s allegations of bias and impartiality appear to be based on rulings the 28 undersigned has made in this case with which Mr. Gage disagrees, some of which have 1 || 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 3 || 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 5 || 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 8 || 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. 11 12 13 {Z, 14 _- {UO 15 Soe United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 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

11 v.

12 Midwestern University,

13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Ian Gage asking the undersigned to 17 recuse himself from this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b). (Doc. 104.) Recusal 18 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 20 of circumstances, including (as relevant to Mr. Gage’s motion) if the judge has a personal 21 bias or prejudice towards a party or if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The 22 alleged bias “must stem from an extrajudicial source and not be based solely on information 23 gained in the course of the proceedings.” Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1045- 24 46 (9th Cir. 1988). Moreover, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis 25 for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (internal 26 citations omitted). 27 Mr. Gage’s allegations of bias and impartiality appear to be based on rulings the 28 undersigned has made in this case with which Mr. Gage disagrees, some of which have 1 || 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 3 || 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 5 || 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 8 || 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. 11 12 13 {Z, 14 _- {UO 15 Soe United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gage v. Midwestern University, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gage-v-midwestern-university-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack