GLADU v. MAGNUSSON et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NICHOLAS A. GLADU, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:22-cv-00134-LEW
)
MATTHEW MAGNUSSON, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECUSAL
Plaintiff 	seeks 	my 	recusal 	in 	this 	matter. 	(Motion, 	ECF 	No. 	116.) 	After
consideration of Plaintiff’s motion, I deny Plaintiff’s request.
DISCUSSION
By law, a judge “shall disqualify himself [or herself] in any proceeding in which his
[or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 	28 U.S.C. § 455(a). 	Under 28
U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, which govern recusal on a motion by a party, “there are two
possible grounds for a judge’s disqualification: (1) the judge’s impartiality may reasonably
be questioned; or (2) the judge may have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
United States v. Kelly, 712 F.2d 884, 889 (1st Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). “The proper
test … is whether the charge of lack of impartiality is grounded on facts that would create
a reasonable doubt concerning the judge’s impartiality, not in the mind of the judge [] or
even necessarily in the mind of the litigant filing the motion …, but rather in the mind of
the reasonable [person].” Panzardi-Alvarez v. United States, 879 F.2d 975, 983 (1st Cir.
1989) (quoting United States v. Cowden, 554 F.2d 257, 265 (1st Cir. 1976)).
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 120 Filed 06/07/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff contends my recusal is warranted because, in his view, I have treated him
unfairly particularly when compared with my treatment of counsel for the defendants.
According to Plaintiff, I have delayed ruling on his motions but have acted promptly on
motions filed by counsel for the defendants. Plaintiff maintains that the alleged different
approach evidences a bias against him.
A review of the docket reveals that I have ruled on twenty-two motions filed by
Plaintiff and four motions filed by Defendants. Certain procedural motions (e.g., motion
to extend time) filed by each party did not require a response for me to rule and I acted on
the motions very soon after filing. On some of the more substantive requests for relief, I
awaited the filing of responsive and reply memoranda before ruling. The time required to
rule on each motion was informed by the nature of the relief requested, the time necessary
to research and assess the relevant issues and write a decision, and the other court matters
for which I am responsible.1
I understand that Plaintiff is likely dissatisfied that I have denied many of his
motions. To the extent Plaintiff contends the decisions reflect some impartiality or bias,
“the mere fact of an adverse ruling” is insufficient to establish bias. 	See U.S. v. Giorgi,
840 F.2d 1022, 1035 (1st Cir. 1988) (citing Kelly, 712 F.2d at 890.) 	This principle is
consistent with the First Circuit’s observation that “there is a need to prevent parties from
1A review of the docket reveals that the average number of days from the time a matter was ready for a
decision (i.e., after the briefing was complete) to the date of decision is less on Plaintiff’s motions (17.5
days) than on Defendants’ motions (26 days).
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 120 Filed 06/07/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
too easily obtaining the disqualification of a judge, thereby potentially manipulating the
system for strategic reasons, perhaps to obtain a judge more to their liking.” F.D.I.C. v.
Sweeney, 136 F.R.D. 216, 220 (1 st Cir. 1998) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
In evaluating Plaintiff’s request for recusal, I am mindful that a “judge has a duty
not to recuse himself or herself if there is no objective basis for recusal.” 	In re United
States, 441 F.3d 44, 67 (1st Cir. 2006). 	After a review of the record, I find no objective
basis for recusal.
C ONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, I deny Plaintiff’s request for my recusal.
NOTICE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 7th day of June, 2024.
Case 1:22-cv-00134-SDN Document 120 Filed 06/07/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>