You are at the Caught.net Legal Reform Website and the Pro Se Way Website

Sample Pro se Motion To Recuse Judge For Cause

Here is an example of an actual, public-record Motion for Recusal for Cause.  Do not use recusal motions frivolously.  You should be reasonably certain there is a high probability of success (such success is unlikely, because judges rarely admit that their brethren are biased or prejudiced).  If the motion is denied, one may be stuck with not only a Bad Judge, but an angrier one.


DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO

Case No. 85DR1167
_________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE STEINHARDT
_________________________________________________________________

In re the Marriage of
David L. Rose                      Petitioner

and,

Mary L. Rose                        Respondent
_________________________________________________________________

          Comes  now petitioner, David L. Rose, pro-se and  moves
to recuse the Honorable Joyce Steinhardt for the reasons that the
said  judge is biased and prejudiced against the  petitioner  and
for the further reason that she is biased and prejudiced  against
males  seeking  custody, and for the further reason that  she  is
biased and prejudiced against children in the context of  custody
cases, all as more particularly appears in the Affidavit of  Bias
and Prejudice submitted herewith.

          WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully moves and prays that
the  Honorable Joyce Steinhardt remove and disqualify herself  as
judge, or that the instant motion be heard by a judge other  than
Judge Steinhardt pursuant to the doctrine of Johnson v.  District
Court,  674  P.2d 952 (1984), to the end that  another  judge  be
assigned to hear and try all matters in the instant case.

          This is the 22nd. day of July 1987




                              ___________________________________

                              David L. Rose
                              Pro-se
                              (Address)
                              Aurora, Colorado 80015
                              (303) (phone)

                VERIFICATION AND AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF COLORADO          )
                        :   ss.
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE      )
         Before  me, the undersigned authority, personally  came
and appeared the affiant named below, who, being first duly sworn
upon  oath,  deposed  and said that he has  read  the  above  and
foregoing  document and knows the contents thereof, and that  all
statements of fact contained therein are true.
          This is the 22nd. Day of July 1987,

                               _________________________________
                                                         AFFIANT
          Subscribed  and sworn to before me, this _____  day  of
July 1987.
                                 ________________________________
                                                    NOTARY PUBLIC
                                                   Address of notary:

                            CERTIFICATE OF MAILING


I  do hereby certify that the above foregoing MOTION  was  mailed
postage  pre-paid by placing the same in a stamped  envelope  and
placed  in  the  United  States mail,  to  the  respondents  last
attorney of record and to the GAL.

xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
Littleton, CO 80121


xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Littleton, CO 80123


Mailed this date__________________________.

----------------------------------------
David L. Rose


DISTRICT COURT,  COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO

Case No. 85DR1167
_________________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE
_________________________________________________________________

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

David L. Rose                Petitioner

and,

Mary L. Rose                 Respondent
_________________________________________________________________

     Comes  now  Petitioner, David L. Rose, pro-se,   who,  being
first   duly  sworn,  states  that  he  believes  the   Honorable
Steinhardt  is biased and prejudiced against him personally,  and
against  fathers  seeking custody, and  against  fathers  seeking
significant involvement with their children and against children.

     Petitioner is past president of Fathers For Equal Rights  of
Colorado,  Executive Vice-President of The National Congress  for
Men,  and  editor  of  Fathers Network  a  magazine  for  Fathers
involved  in discriminatory divorces  and has been  an  outspoken
critic of Judge Steinhardt.

     The  petitioner has been vocal in denouncing  the  decisions
and  the attitude of the Honorable Judge Steinhardt and has  made
these proclamations public.

     The  petitioner has initiated an independent  evaluation  of
the  Honorable  Steinhardt's record in custody  matters  and  has
determined  that  her record clearly shows an  extreme  PREJUDICE
against men and against pro-se litigants.

     The effect of this exercise of petitioner's right to freedom
of  speech  is  to so prejudice   Judge  Steinhardt,  an   avowed
advocate of  feminist rights, against him that he cannot obtain a
fair trial in her court.

     The judge has been unnecessarily harsh on the petitioner  in
this matter an it has appeared to at least two other witnesses to
her  conduct that she has acted in a prejudicial  fashion  toward
the  petitioner.  (Exhibits  attached).  Further  the  court  has
imposed  such  impossible  financial burdens  on  the  petitioner
Accordingly,  affiant  moves and prays that the  Honorable  Joyce
Steinhardt   be  disqualified from further  proceedings  in  this
matter.

     FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

     This is the 22nd. day of July, 1987.
                   VERIFICATION AND AFFIDAVIT


STATE OF COLORADO      )
                          ss.
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE     )


          Before me,  the undersigned authority,  personally came
and appeared the affiant named below, who, being first duly sworn
upon  oath,  deposed  and  said that he has read  the  above  and
foregoing  document and knows the contents thereof,  and that all
statements of fact contained therein are true.

          This is the 22ND. day of July 1987, at Denver, Colorado.

                            __________________________________
                                                        AFFIANT

          Subscribed  and  sworn to before me, this 15th  day  of
July 1987,  at Denver, Colorado.  My commission expires _________

                               ----------------------------------
                                NOTARY PUBLIC
                                Address of notary:

                    CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO

Case No. 85DR1167
_________________________________________________________________

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE STEINHARDT
_________________________________________________________________

In re the Marriage of:

David L. Rose                         Petitioner

and,

Mary L. Rose                          Respondent
_________________________________________________________________

          This  motion by David L. Rose, Pro-se to  recuse  Judge
Steinhardt is governed by Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 97.

          The  question  is  not  whether  the  Honorable   Joyce
Steinhardt  is impartial in fact, but rather  whether  reasonable
men  might  question her impartiality  under  all  circumstances.
United States v. Gigax, 605 F.2d 507 (10th Cir. 1979).

          Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing before
a  judge  other than Judge Steinhardt, at which  hearing  he  may
adduce  evidence  to  show that Judge  Steinhardt  is  prejudiced
against   outspoken  advocates  of  equal  rights  for   fathers,
including the petitioner.

          The instant motion must be heard by a judge other  than
Judge  Steinhardt.   The case of Johnson v. District  Court,  674
P.2d  952  (Colo. 1984) is apposite.  In that case,  the  Supreme
Court said:

         Where  an  attorney for one of  the  litigants
         signs  a verified affidavit  alleging  conduct
         and   statements on the part of a trial  judge
         which,  if true, shows bias and  prejudice  or
         the  appearance  of bias or prejudice  on  the
         part  of  the trial judge, it is an  abuse  of
         discretion  if  that judge does  not  withdraw
         from the case, even though he or she  believes
         the  statements are false or that the  meaning
         attributed  to  them  by  the  party   seeking
         recusal  is  erroneous.  In such a  case,  the
         judge  should  not  pass  upon  the  truth  or
         falsity of the facts alleged in the affidavit,
         but only upon the adequacy of the motion as  a
         matter of law.


     In  another case as reported in the Colorado Lawyer;  Wright
vs. District Court, 16 Colorado Lawyer 541, March 1987 the  court
ruled that:

         The fact that Judge Goldsmith in his own  mind
         does not believe that he is prejudiced against
         Wright   and   his  firm  does   not   prevent
         disqualification if the motions and affidavits
         reflect   prejudice  and  an   appearance   of
         impropriety.

The Supreme Court went on to say:

         Once  facts have been set forth that create  a
         reasonable inference of a "bent of mind"  that
         will  prevent  the judge from  dealing  fairly
         with   the  party  seeking  recusal,   it   is
         incumbent  upon  the  trial  judge  to  recuse
         himself.  See People v. Botham, 629 P.2d  589,
         595  (Colo.  1981); C.J.C. Canon  3(C)(1).   A
         trial  judge must accept the affidavits  filed
         with the motion as true, even though the judge
         believes that the statements contained in  the
         affidavits  are  false  or  that  the  meaning
         attributed  to  them  by  the  party   seeking
         recusal  is  erroneous.  Johnson  v.  District
         Court, 674 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1982).

     C.R.C.P. 97 provides:

"A  judge  shall  be disqualified in an action  in  which  he  is
interested  or prejudiced,  or has been of counsel for any party,
or  is  or  has been a material witness,  or  is  so  related  or
connected with any party of his attorney as to render it improper
for him to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein.
A  judge may disqualify himself on his own motion for any of said
reasons  or  any party may move for such disqualification  and  a
motion  by  a party for disqualification shall  be  supported  by
affidavit.  Upon the filing by a party of such a motion all other
proceedings in the case shall be suspended until a ruling is made
thereon.   Upon  disqualifying  himself,  a  judge  shall  notify
forthwith  the  chief  judge of the  district  who  shall  assign
another  judge in the district to hear the action.  If  no  other
judge in the district is available or qualified, the chief  judge
shall  notify forthwith the court administrator who shall  obtain
from the Chief Justice the assignment of a replacement judge."

     We  said in Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d  952  (Colo.
1984):

         "Ordinarily,  the question of whether a  judge
         should  be disqualified in a civil case  is  a
         matter  within  the discretion  of  the  trial
         court.   In re Marriage of Mann, 655 P.2d  814
         (Colo. 1982).  However, where an attorney  for
         one   of  the  litigants  signs   a   verified
         affidavit  alleging conduct and statements  on
         the part of a trial judge which, if true, show
         bias  or prejudice or the appearance  of  bias
         or  prejudice on the part of the trial  judge,
         it  is  an abuse of discretion if  that  judge
         does  not withdraw from the case, even  though
         he or she believes the statements are false or
         that  the  meaning attributed to them  by  the
         party seeking recusal is erroneous.  In such a
         case, the judge should not pass upon the truth
         or  falsity  of  the  facts  alleged  in   the
         affidavit,  but only upon the adequacy of  the
         of the motion as a matter of law.  'The motion
         and supporting affidavit speak for  themselves
         and the only question involved is whether  the
         facts  alleged  are sufficient to  compel  the
         judge  to  disqualify himself.'   Kovacheff  v
         Langhart, 147 Colo. 339, 343-44, 363 P.2d 702,
         705  (1961).   The motion and  affidavits  are
         legally  adequate  if they 'state  facts  from
         which  it may reasonably be inferred that  the
         judge has bias or prejudice that will  prevent
         him  from  dealing  fairly'  with  the   party
         seeking  recusal.  People v. Botham, 629  P.2d
         589, 595 (Colo. 1981)."

     Because the act of appearing Pro-se, installs and grants  an
individual  under the constitution of the United States  and  the
constitution  of the State of Colorado, full authority to act  as
an  officer of the court in all matters both civil and  criminal,
it  therefore  stands to reason that an affidavit  signed  by  an
individual,  pro-se and substantiated by others who were  witness
to  the  event, should bear up as having the same  weight  as  an
affidavit signed by an attorney for a litigant.

     It therefore stand to reason that:

         "A    judge   must   grant   a   motion    for
         disqualification if the motion and  supporting
         affidavits   state   facts   from   which   it
         reasonably may be inferred that the judge  has
         a bias or prejudice that will prevent him from
         dealing fairly with the party seeking recusal.
         The  judge  must accept the  affidavits  filed
         with the motion as true even though the  judge
         believes that the statements contained in  the
         affidavits are false."

          Respectfully  it is submitted that the Honorable  Joyce
Steinhardt  must  be  disqualified  from the  above  numbered  and
entitled action.

          Respectfully  submitted this 22nd., day of July 1987.

                           ______________________________________
                              David L. Rose
                              (address).
                              Aurora, Colorado 80015
                              (303) (phone)

                     CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
(same as first example)
Graphic Line
Graphic Line
This site is a 100% volunteer effort.  Please help us!
Donate online NOW
Due to volume, we only deal with
electronic communications
now (email).

-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Is Gay Prejudice Taught In The Bible?   Tithing - Fact vs. Fiction