No. 19-7424

Christine Ham v. Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, et al.

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2020-01-27
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: conflict-of-interest due-process fourteenth-amendment impartiality judicial-bias judicial-disclosure judicial-disqualification judicial-ethics judicial-independence judicial-recusal public-confidence
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-03-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does an intolerable conflict exist when the Supreme Court of California and the Ninth Circuit squarely address whether the appearance of partiality suffices to establish a ground for recusal and reach opposite conclusions?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does an intolerable conflict exist when the Supreme Court of California and the Ninth Circuit squarely address whether the appearance of partiality suffices to establish a ground for recusal and reach opposite conclusions? 2. Whether Judge McGowen’s violation of judicial disclosure law followed by her failure to recuse herself from participation in her former client’ s case after being the sole party that reviewed and determined her own disqualification for cause violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2

Docket Entries

2020-03-30
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.
2019-10-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 26, 2020)

Attorneys

Christine Ham
Christine Ham — Petitioner