CHIEN v. FREER et al, No. 1:2018cv02050 - Document 35 (D.D.C. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court shall DENY Plaintiff's 29 Motion to Disqualify Judge. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff at his registered address. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 11/23/2021. (lcckk1) Modified on 11/24/2021 to add "Memorandum Opinion" (kt).

Download PDF
CHIEN v. FREER et al Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANDREW CHIEN, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 18-2050 (CKK) v. RICHARD J. FREER, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (November 23, 2021) This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s [29] Motion to Remove Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly From Presiding this Case Due to 28USC [sic] § 455(a). Although Plaintiff’s Motion is difficult to follow, Plaintiff appears to seek recusal of the undersigned because: (1) Plaintiff filed a now-closed, frivolous lawsuit against the undersigned, Chien v. Kollar-Kotelly, 19CV3100, and (2) Plaintiff disagrees with a number of rulings the undersigned has made in this and related cases. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s [29] Motion. Plaintiff’s pending motion seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 144, which allows for the recusal of a judge where 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 . . . ” 28 U.S.C. § 144. But “the mere fact that a party has filed a [Section] 144 motion, accompanied by the requisite affidavit . . . does not automatically result in the challenged judge’s disqualification.” Strange v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 46 F. Supp. 3d 78, 81 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Robertson v. Cartinhour, 691 F. Supp. 2d 65, 77 (D.D.C. 2010)). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Instead, to merit recusal under § 144, an affidavit should state “material facts with particularity,” which “would convince a reasonable person that a bias exists, and [that] the alleged bias is personal in nature and stems from an extrajudicial source.” Jordan v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 315 F. Supp. 3d 584, 591 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., 838 F.2d 1287, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff’s Motion does not meet this standard. At the outset, Plaintiff’s Motion is procedurally deficient as he does not attach a supporting affidavit. See Jordan, 315 F. Supp. 3d at 591. Moreover, Plaintiff’s papers simply criticize this Court’s prior orders. In Plaintiff’s view, the Court’s ruling did not adequately consider certain public documents that provide evidence of the alleged tortious actions by Defendants. See Mot. at 3-4, ECF No. 29. The Court rejects this argument as a basis for recusal, as “mere dissatisfaction with a ruling of this Court is insufficient to warrant recusal or disqualification.” Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 278 F. Supp. 3d 252, 258 (D.D.C. 2017); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Additionally, without more, the mere invocation of his prior suit against the undersigned does not demonstrate “the kind of ‘extreme’ bias that could provide a basis for recusal.” See SEC v. Loving Spirit Found., 392 F.3d 486, 493 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Upon review of remaining record herein, the Court finds no other source of support for Plaintiff’s repeated request for recusal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s [29] Motion to Remove Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly From Presiding this Case Due to 28USC § 455(a) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Date: November 23, 2021 /s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.