King v. Cornerstone

Summary

The court denied pro se plaintiff Derrick Martin King’s motion for recusal in litigation arising from the Philips recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator products multidistrict litigation. The court held that King identified no extrajudicial source of bias, challenged only judicial rulings, and filed the motion untimely after being ordered to show cause why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to comply with discovery obligations. The court reserved further consideration of the show-cause issue pending Philips’s anticipated motion to dismiss.

Holdings

1. Recusal was not required because King did not identify an extrajudicial source of bias or facts from which a reasonable person with knowledge of the circumstances would question the court's impartiality.
2. The recusal motion was untimely because King waited until after the show-cause order, despite knowing of the challenged rulings months earlier and seeking other relief from the court in the interim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district judge was required to recuse under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455(a) based on King's allegations concerning the court's discovery, evidentiary, and remand-related rulings.
2. Whether King's recusal request was untimely because he waited until after the court issued a show-cause order threatening dismissal.
3. Whether a judge's rulings and conduct during the official proceedings constituted an extrajudicial source of bias requiring recusal.

Disposition

other