FEDERAL · 28 U.S.C. · Chapter 5

Bias or prejudice of judge

28 U.S.C. § 144

This text of 28 U.S.C. § 144 (Bias or prejudice of judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
28 U.S.C. § 144.

Text

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.

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

Related

United States v. Danny John Montecalvo
545 F.2d 684 (Ninth Circuit, 1976)
50 case citations
Gregory Downs v. California Attorney General
639 F. App'x 435 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
2 case citations
Jones v. Smith
(Fifth Circuit, 2000)
Krislee Hall v. Apollo Group, Inc.
652 F. App'x 557 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Thomson
(Fifth Circuit, 2002)
Pond v. Doe
(W.D. Washington, 2022)
Smith v. Legacy Partners Inc
(W.D. Washington, 2022)
Johnson v. Nordstrom
(W.D. Washington, 2024)
Langworthy v. Clallam County
(W.D. Washington, 2023)
Chen v. Bellevue School District
(W.D. Washington, 2024)
Hart v. Weyrich
(W.D. Washington, 2023)

Source Credit

History

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 898; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §65, 63 Stat. 99.)

Editorial Notes

Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §25 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §21, 36 Stat. 1090).
The provision that the same procedure shall be had when the presiding judge disqualifies himself was omitted as unnecessary. (See section 291 et seq. and section 455 of this title.)
Words, "at which the proceeding is to be heard," were added to clarify the meaning of words, "before the beginning of the term." (See U.S. v. Costea, D.C.Mich. 1943, 52 F.Supp. 3.)
Changes were made in phraseology and arrangement.

1949 Act
This amendment clarifies the intent in section 144 of title 28, U.S.C., to conform to the law as it existed at the time of the enactment of the revision limiting the filing of affidavits of prejudice to one such affidavit in any case.

Editorial Notes

Amendments
1949—Act May. 24, 1949, substituted "in any case" for "as to any judge" in second sentence of second par.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Abolition of Terms
For abolition of formal terms of the court and replacement by sessions, see sections 138 and 139 of this title.

Editorial Notes

Amendments
2005—Pub. L. 109–8, title VI, §601(b), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 120, added item 159.

Prior Provisions
A prior chapter 6, consisting of sections 151 to 160, which was added by Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §201(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2657, as amended by Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §110(d), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 29, and which related to bankruptcy courts, did not become effective pursuant to section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Courts During Transition
Pub. L. 95–598, title IV, §404, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2683, as amended by Pub. L. 98–249, §1(b), Mar. 31, 1984, 98 Stat. 116; Pub. L. 98–271, §1(b), Apr. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 163; Pub. L. 98–299, §1(b), May 25, 1984, 98 Stat. 214; Pub. L. 98–325, §1(b), June 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 268; Pub. L. 98–353, title I, §121(b), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 345, which provided that, for purposes of Pub. L. 95–598, which enacted Title 11, Bankruptcy, and the amendments made by Pub. L. 95–598, the courts of bankruptcy as defined under section 1(10) of former Title 11, created under section 11(a) of former Title 11, and existing on Sept. 30, 1979, continue to be courts of bankruptcy during the transition period beginning Oct. 1, 1979, and ending July 9, 1984, made provision for extension of the term of office of referees in bankruptcy serving on Nov. 6, 1978, and for such a referee to have the title of United States bankruptcy judge, established for each State a merit screening committee to pass on qualifications of such a referee and determine if the term of such a referee should be extended, and set forth the rules and provisions applicable to United States bankruptcy judges during the transition period, was repealed by Pub. L. 98–353, title I, §§114, 122(a), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 343, 346, eff. July 10, 1984.

Transition Study
Pub. L. 95–598, title IV, §406, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2686, as amended by Pub. L. 98–249, §1(c), Mar. 31, 1984, 98 Stat. 116; Pub. L. 98–271, §1(c), Apr. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 163; Pub. L. 98–299, §1(c), May 25, 1984, 98 Stat. 214; Pub. L. 98–325, §1(c), June 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 268; Pub. L. 98–353, title I, §121(c), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 346, which provided that during the transition period, Oct. 1, 1979, to July 9, 1984, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts make continuing studies and surveys in the judicial districts to determine the number of bankruptcy judges needed after July 9, 1984, to provide for the expeditious and effective administration of justice, their regular places of offices, and the places where the court was to be held, and that the Director report to the judicial councils of the circuits and the Judicial Conference of the United States his recommendations, the judicial councils advise the Conference of their recommendations, and the Conference recommend to the Congress and the President, before Jan. 3, 1983, the number of bankruptcy judges needed after July 9, 1984, and the locations at which they were to serve, was repealed by Pub. L. 98–353, title I, §§114, 122(a), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 343, 346, eff. July 10, 1984.

Judicial Administration During Transition
Pub. L. 95–598, title IV, §407, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2686, which provided that the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts appoint a committee of not fewer than seven United States bankruptcy judges to advise the Director with respect to matters arising during the transition period or that are relevant to the purposes of the transition period, and directed that during the transition period, the chief judge of each circuit summon at least one bankruptcy judge from each judicial district within the circuit to the judicial conference of such circuit called and held under section 332 of this title, was repealed by Pub. L. 98–353, title I, §§114, 122(a), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 343, 346, eff. July 10, 1984.

Extension and Termination of Term of Office of Bankruptcy Judge Serving on June 27, 1984
Pub. L. 98–353, title I, §121(e), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 346, provided that: "The term of office of any bankruptcy judge who was serving on June 27, 1984, is extended to and shall expire at the end of the day of enactment of this Act [July 10, 1984]."
[Section 121(e) of Pub. L. 98–353 effective June 27, 1984, see section 122(c) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as an Effective Date note under section 151 of this title.]
For prior extensions of the term of office of bankruptcy judges see:
Pub. L. 98–325, §2, June 20, 1984, 98 Stat. 268.
Pub. L. 98–299, §2, May 25, 1984, 98 Stat. 214.
Pub. L. 98–271, §2, Apr. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 163.
Pub. L. 98–249, §2, Mar. 31, 1984, 98 Stat. 116.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 U.S.C. § 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/28/144.