USA v. Bachmeier

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN CURTIS BACHMEIER,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:17-cr-00103-SLG
ORDER RE “DEMAND FOR RECUSAL”
Before the Court at Docket 252 is Mr. Bachmeier’s “Demand for Recusal.”
The Government responded in opposition at Docket 260. Also, at Docket 267, Mr.
Bachmeier 	requested 	a 	hearing 	on 	the 	motion, 	to 	which 	the 	Government
responded in opposition at Docket 271.
In his motion, Mr. Bachmeier seeks to recuse the undersigned judge. 	The
basis for the request appears to be Mr. Bachmeier’s assertion that he has “lodged
[a] criminal complaint” against this judge and thus she is “not impartial.”1 	Mr.
Bachmeier’s 	motion 	references 	a 	letter 	he 	indicates 	that 	he 	wrote 	to 	the
Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and references the DOJ’s reply2; however, neither
letter was attached to his motion or otherwise received by the Court. In his motion
for a hearing on recusal, Mr. Bachmeier acknowledges that the copy of his motion
1 Docket 252 at 1.
2 Docket 252 at 1.
Case 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 278 Filed 09/24/19 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:17-cr-00103-SLG, USA v. Bachmeier
Order re “Demand for Recusal”
Page 2 of 3
that was sent to him by the Clerk of Court did not include the letters; he indicates
contends 	“maybe 	those 	8 	pages 	did 	not 	get 	filed.”3 	In 	opposition 	to 	Mr.
Bachmeier’s motion for a hearing, counsel for the United States indicates that she
is “not aware of any communications between the defendant and the Department
of Justice regarding a potential recusal.”4
A judge is required to recuse herself under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455 if an
objectively reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that
the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned were the judge to continue
to hear the case.5 Actual bias is not required; “the appearance of impropriety can
be a sufficient basis for judicial recusal.”6 And yet a judge “must not simply recuse
out of an abundance of caution when the facts do not warrant recusal. 	Rather,
there is an equally compelling obligation not to recuse where recusal [is] not
appropriate.”7 	Section 455 is limited by the “extrajudicial source” factor which
generally requires as the basis for recusal something other than rulings, opinions
formed or statements made by the judge during the course of trial.8 	Where the
3 Docket 267 at 1.
4 Docket 271 at 1.
5 See DeNardo v. Municipality of Anchorage, 974 F.2d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 1992); United States
v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 909, 911 (9th
Cir. 2011).
6 Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014).
7 United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., 759 F.Supp. 2d 1198, 1200–01 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing United
States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008).
8 See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 (1994).
Case 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 278 Filed 09/24/19 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:17-cr-00103-SLG, USA v. Bachmeier
Order re “Demand for Recusal”
Page 3 of 3
source of alleged bias or prejudice is a judicial proceeding, a party must show a
disposition on the part of the judge that is “so extreme as to display clear inability
to render fair judgment.”9
Mr. Bachmeier bears the burden of proving facts that would justify recusal.10
Mr. Bachmeier’s motion for recusal is based on an unsupported allegation that he
has complained to the Department of Justice about the undersigned judge. 	Mr.
Bachmeier has not explained the basis for the complaint or provided any evidence
of its existence. Accordingly, there are “no facts presented which [give] rise to an
appearance of bias.”11 	Moreover, a private citiczen cannot bring a criminal action
against another person nor can they petition the federal courts to compel the
criminal prosecution of another person.12
In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s Demand for Recusal at Docket 252 is
DENIED. A hearing on the motion was not necessary to the Court’s determination;
therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Hearing on Recusal at Docket 267 is DENIED.
DATED this 24th day of September, 2019 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 Id. at 551.
10 See Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014).
11 DeNardo v. Municipality of Anchorage, 974 F.2d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 1992).
12 Leonardo v. Coalinga State Hospital, 2019 WL 2249628, at n.2 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2019).
Case 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 278 Filed 09/24/19 Page 3 of 3