No. 23-7555
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion appearance-of-impropriety civil-procedure due-process federal-defender judicial-ethics judicial-recusal procedural-review right-to-counsel standard-of-review
Key Terms:
Securities ClassAction
Securities ClassAction
Latest Conference:
2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should a court of appeals review a judge's denial of a motion to recuse de novo or for an abuse of discretion?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Shouid a court of appeals review a judge's denial of a motion to recuse de novo or for an abuse of discretion? Did Judge Brown himself created the appearance of impropriety when he brought the Federal Defender lawyer to replace Petitioner paid counsel, finding no grounds to have counsel appointed at public expense, that would reasonably. be perceived as coercive abuse of discretion? . ‘ .
Docket Entries
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-26
Application (23A1158) denied by Justice Sotomayor.
2024-06-24
Application (23A1158) for bail, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
2024-06-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-06-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-05-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 24, 2024)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent