No. 22-7601
Daniel E. Hall v. Twitter, Inc.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: administrative-law civil-procedure due-process impartiality-standard judicial-bias judicial-disqualification judicial-ethics judicial-misconduct judicial-recusal procedural-due-process statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
Was recusal mandatory under § 455(b)(1) where the trial judge's administrative activities had involved her in "disputed evidentiary facts?
Was recusal mandatory under § 144 and § 455(a) where a reasonable person might question [the judge's] ability to remain impartial in hearing the case after learning material facts from an extrajudicial source?
If recusal is mandatory, would any subsequent orders be void?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was recusal mandatory under § 455(b)(1) and § 144 and § 455(a) where the trial judge's activities involved disputed evidentiary facts and a reasonable person might question the judge's ability to remain impartial?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-06-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-06-20
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-06-14
Waiver of right of respondent Twitter, Inc. to respond filed.
2023-04-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 20, 2023)
Attorneys
Daniel E. Hall
Daniel E. Hall — Petitioner
Twitter, Inc.
Kenneth M. Trujillo-Jamison — Willenken LLP, Respondent
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent