28 U.S.C. § 144
Bias or prejudice of judge
Whenever 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, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2,938
cases (1,155 in the last 5 years), 1932–2026 · leading case: Liteky v. United States
Liteky v. United States (1994)
“In its current form, codified at 28 U. S. C. § 144 , that provision reads as follows: "Whenever 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…”
United States v. Michael Lee Sammons (1990)
“allegations of error on appeal, including, inter alia: (1) deprivation of his right to trial by jury through an unknowing and uninformed waiver; (2) violation of his fifth amendment right to due process and sixth amendment right to counsel through the unlawful seizure and…”
Shirley Hoffman v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2004)
“Hoffman now appeals, challenging myriad rulings, the jury instructions, and the denial of Hoffman’s motion to disqualify Judge McDade under 28 U.S.C. § 144 . We affirm for the reasons outlined below.”
Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc. (2010)
“Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Larry Klayman’s (“Klayman”) [345] Motion to Disqualify this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 . This represents Klayman’s second attempt to disqualify this Court in this case based on the allegation that certain of the Court’s…”
In Re Estate of Wilson (2010)
“Federal district courts are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 144 , which authorizes parties to obtain a substitution of judge on the grounds that the original trial judge has a personal bias or prejudice against them or in favor of an adverse party.”
Sataki v. Broadcasting Board of Governors (2010)
“Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Elham Sataki’s [66] Motion to Disqualify this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 . This is, in effect, Plaintiffs second attempt to disqualify the Court based on allegations that certain of the Court’s rulings, combined with the…”
The Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana v. Harry L. Laws Company, Inc. (1982)
“On November 13, the day before a hearing, which had been scheduled months in advance, the Chitimachas filed a motion to disqualify Judge Davis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. They alleged that Judge Davis was interested in the outcome of the litigation because: (1) the…”
United States v. Brocato (2021)
“Invoking 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(a) as well as the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, they argued that the district court’s “sua sponte, ex parte investigation into Mrs.”
Cooney v. Booth (2003)
“Claims that a federal district judge should recuse in an ongoing litigation are generally examined under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455 . As discussed below, the statutes, while related and designed to serve the common purpose of insuring the integrity of the judicial…”
Stacy Allen Draper v. Clinton D. Reynolds (2004)
“§ 455 and 28 U.S.C. § 144 . The bases for Draper’s motion are: (1) Draper’s counsel’s previous involvement in a case before Judge Camp, in which Judge Camp reduced the attorney’s fees sought by Draper’s counsel; (2) Judge Camp’s ownership interest in certain property located in…”
Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc. (2017)
“§ 455 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 144 . This is Plaintiffs third motion for this purpose, and it is again Qpposed by Defendants.”
Halscott Megaro, P.A. v. Henry McCollum (2023)
“§ 455 , 28 U.S.C. § 144 , or Canon 3C (1) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.”
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.