Douglas-E. Anderson v. Paul Tenhaken et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Douglas E. Anderson’s motion to recuse the assigned judge and his request to strike a prior order as void. The court held that Anderson had not shown bias, prejudice, or any factual or legal basis to question the judge’s Article III authority. The court also found his challenge to the judge’s appointment and authority frivolous.

Holdings

1. Recusal was not required because Anderson did not allege bias, prejudice, or a lack of impartiality arising from an extrajudicial source, and his assertion that the judge was not a duly appointed Article III judge had no colorable legal or factual basis.
2. The prior order was not void ab initio and would not be stricken from the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district judge was required to recuse under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455 based on Anderson's contention that the judge lacked Article III authority.
2. Whether the court's prior order should be stricken from the record as void ab initio because of the alleged lack of judicial authority.

Disposition

other