5 C.F.R. § 1201.42
Disqualifying a judge
(a) If a judge considers himself or herself disqualified, he or she will withdraw from the case, state on the record the reasons for doing so, and another judge will be promptly assigned.
(b) A party may file a motion asking the judge to withdraw on the basis of personal bias or other disqualification. This motion must be filed as soon as the party has reason to believe there is a basis for disqualification. The reasons for the request must be set out in an affidavit or sworn statement under 28 U.S.C. 1746. (See appendix IV.)
(c) If the judge denies the motion, the party requesting withdrawal may request certification of the issue to the Board as an interlocutory appeal under § 1201.91 of this part. Failure to request certification is considered a waiver of the request for withdrawal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Chong McClenning v. Dep't of the Army, 2022 MSPB 3 (MSPB 2022).
Chong McClenning v. Dep't of the Army, 2022 MSPB 3 (MSPB 2022). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 (b)-(c); see Thomas v.”
Mitzi Baker v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2022 MSPB 27 (MSPB 2022). “¶7 From its inception, the Board has had a regulation, at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 , concerning the disqualification of administrative judges.”
Chianelli v. Env't Prot. Agency, 8 F. App'x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 (c), if an administrative judge denies a party’s motion to recuse himself, “the party requesting withdrawal may request certification of the issue to the Board as an interlocutory appeal under [ 5 C.”
Thomas v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 350 F. App'x 448 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Recusal of an AJ at the MSPB is governed by 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 (2006), which states: “[I]f the judge denies the motion, the party requesting withdrawal may request certification of the issue to the Board as an interlocutory appeal under § 1201.”
Generette v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 681 F. App'x 929 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Generette does not allege that the decision before us was infected by any bias; nor did she move for the administrative judge to disqualify himself according to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 . In the absence of an alleged defect in the decision, this court does not have the authority to…”
Vera Davis-Clewis v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2024 MSPB 5 (MSPB 2024). “The administrative judge construed the appellant’s argument regarding her appointment as a motion to disqualify her under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 (b). IAF, Tab 30. The administrative judge denied the motion to disqualify her, finding that the Board had ratified her appointment by…”
Ricky Jones v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2022). “12 disqualified pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 . 5 PFR File, Tab 5 at 19-20.”
Jacqueline Brown v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2024). “We discern no basis to disturb the administrative judge’s denial order; indeed, as set forth therein, the appellant’s request failed to comport with 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 , which required her (1) to file her request as soon as she had reason to believe that there was a basis for…”
Gwendolyn G. Thompson v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2016). “198 , ¶ 7 (2000); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 (b). The appellant did not follow the regulatory procedures for disqualifying the administrative judge based on alleged bias in his predecisional handling of the case.”
Gwendolyn G. Thompson v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2016). “198 , ¶ 7 (2000); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 (b). The appellant did not follow the regulatory procedures for disqualifying the administrative judge based on alleged bias in his predecisional handling of the case.”
Ethel G. Brooks v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2017). “part 1201 for detailed information on Board procedures, IAF, Tab 2 at 5, and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 clearly provides that the reasons for a motion for disqualification of an administrative judge must be set out in an affidavit or a sworn statement.”
Adetayo Agboke v. Dep't of Just. (MSPB 2024). “” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.42 (b). To the extent the appellant contends that the administrative judge was biased, we find no merit to his accusation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.