David Brian Derringer

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PACER Cover Sheet
for Electronically Filed Documents
Any data shown here are current as of 	. Any element of information on this form,
except the received date, is subject to change as changes may be made to the Court's official docket.
Case Title:
Case Number:
Document Information
Description:
Date Filed:
Date Entered On
Docket:
Filer Information
Submitted By:
If this form is attached to the document identified above, it serves as an endorsed copy of the
document as it existed on the above date. To confirm that nothing has changed since then,
review the docket.
06/10/06
David Brian Derringer
04-17330
Order Denying [109-1] Motion To Recuse Judge McFeeley by David Brian Derringer.
Received on: 2005-02-02 14:25:48.000
2005-02-02 00:00:00.000
2005-02-03 00:00:00.000
Patti Hennessy
Case 04-17330-m13 Doc 120 Filed 02/02/05 Entered 02/03/05 15:58:00 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re: DAVID DERRINGER, No. 13-04-17330 MA
Debtor.
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO RECUSE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Debtor David Derringer’s Motion to Recuse Judge
McFeeley Pursuant to Title 28 Section 455(a)(1) Due to Bias, Prejudice, and Criminal Acts Against
the Debtor Under the Meaning of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241 and Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242 of
Constitutional Deprivations of the 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendment, and Deprivations Under Federal
Laws Title 42 Section 1981(a) and Title 42 Section 1982 (“Motion”). After reviewing the Motion,
and being otherwise sufficiently informed, the Court finds that recusal is unwarranted, and the Motion
should therefore be denied.
Recusal is warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455 where “a reasonable person, knowing all the
relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937,
939 (10th Cir. 1987). “[R]ecusal is necessary if there is evidence of actual bias. . .” Frates v.
Weinshienk, 882 F.2d 1502, 1504 (10th Cir. 1989). However, unless it can be shown that there is
pervasive bias against a party, the alleged bias must be based on extra-judicial conduct. Gokey v.
McIntosh (In re McIntosh), 137 B.R. 967, 970 (D.Colo. 1992) (citing United States v. Page, 828
F.2d 1476, 1481 (10th Cir. 1987). “Consistent adverse rulings, without more, is not a reason for
recusal . . .” Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, “‘[t]here is as much obligation for a judge not to recuse
when there is no occasion . . . to do so as there is . . . to [recuse] when there is.’” In re American
Ready Mix, Inc., 14 F.3d 1497, 1501 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937,
Case 04-17330-m13 Doc 120 Filed 02/02/05 Entered 02/03/05 15:58:00 Page 2 of 3

938 (10th Cir. 1987)). Finally, “‘[a] judge should not recuse . . . on unsupported, irrational, or highly
tenuous speculation.’” Id.
Debtor’s unsupported allegations fail to meet these standards. "The [recusal] statute is not
intended to give litigants a veto power over sitting judges, or a vehicle for obtaining a judge of their
choice." United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir.1993). Recusal is, therefore,
unnecessary and unwarranted.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Motion is DENIED.
‘ ___________________________________
MARK B. McFEELEY
United States Bankruptcy Judge
I certify that on the date shown on the attached
document verification, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing was either electronically transmitted,
faxed, delivered or mailed to the listed counsel
and/or parties.
David Derringer, pro se
Box 157
Quemado, NM 87829
________________________________
Patti G. Hennessy
Law Clerk
(505) 348-2545
Case 04-17330-m13 Doc 120 Filed 02/02/05 Entered 02/03/05 15:58:00 Page 3 of 3