Government opposition to motion for judicial recusal — U.S. v. Staveley/Butziger (D.R.I.)

Summary

The Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Recusal of District Court Judge, filed November 16, 2022 as Doc. 111 in United States v. David Staveley, Criminal No. 20-074-MSM, in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. It responds to defendant David Staveley's motion (ECF # 110) asking that the Court recuse itself, which cites rulings including granting a motion to withdraw by prior counsel and denying a motion to preserve communications. The government argues that recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), cites In re Bulger, and states that adverse rulings do not show bias and that defendant provides no factual basis for questioning the Court's impartiality. It asks that the motion be denied. The signature block names Zachary A. Cunha and Lee H. Vilker.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
) 
)   Criminal No. 20-074-MSM 
v. 
 
 
   
) 
) 
DAVID STAVELEY, 
 
 
) 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
) 
 
   GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 
MOTION  FOR RECUSAL OF DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 
 
 
In his latest motion (ECF # 110), defendant David Staveley (“Staveley”) moved that this 
Court recuse itself from this proceeding. As grounds, defendant cites a number of examples in 
which the Court ruled in ways in which he disagreed, including, inter alia, granting a motion to 
withdraw by prior counsel, denying a motion for court appointed counsel in connection with a 
collateral proceeding and denying of a motion to preserve communications between the Court 
and the Chief Justice for the District of Rhode Island. That the Court may have ruled in a manner 
that disappointed defendant does not suggest any sort of bias or impartiality on the Court’s 
behalf. Defendant’s motion for recusal of the Court should be denied. 
 
The recusal of a district court judge is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which provides 
that a judge “shall disqualify himself [or herself] in any proceeding in which his [or her] 
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See Susan B. Hoekema, Questioning the 
Impartiality of Judges: Disqualifying Federal District Court Judges Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), 
60 Temp. L.Q. 697, 708 (1987) (“Section 455(a) suggests that it requires disqualification for the 
appearance of bias.”) As the First Circuit held in In re Bulger, 710 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2013) 
(Souter, J.), the “point under § 455(a) is not his actual state of mind at a particular time, but the 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 111   Filed 11/16/22   Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1053

2 
 
existence of facts that would prompt a reasonable question in the mind of a well-informed person 
about the judge’s capacity for impartiality.” Importantly, “the disqualification decision must 
reflect not only the need to secure public confidence through proceedings that appear impartial, 
but also the need to prevent parties from too easily obtaining the disqualification of a judge, 
thereby potentially manipulating the system for strategic reasons, perhaps to obtain a judge more 
to their liking.” In re Allied-Signal Inc., 89 F.2d 967, 970 (1st Cir. 1989); see In re United States, 
158 F. 3d 26, 35 (1st Cir. 1998) (“A party cannot cast sinister aspersions, fail to provide a factual 
basis for those aspersions, and then claim that the judge must disqualify herself because the 
aspersions, ex proprio vigore, created a cloud on her impartiality.”)   
 
Defendant does not, and cannot, provide any factual basis for impugning the Court’s 
impartiality in this case. There are simply no facts from which a reasonable person could 
question the Court’s impartiality. That the Court has ruled against the defendant on a number of 
motions he has filed does not in any way indicate any sort of bias on behalf of the Court. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion should be denied. 
 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted,    
 
ZACHARY A. CUNHA 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
___________________________ 
LEE H. VILKER 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 111   Filed 11/16/22   Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1054

3 
 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
 
I hereby certify that on this 16th day of November 2022, I caused the within 
Government’s Opposition to be filed electronically and it is available for viewing and 
downloading from the ECF system. I also certify that this Opposition has been mailed to: 
 
 
David Staveley 
 
Reg. No. 04230-049 
 
FMC Devens – Camp 
 
P.O. Box 879 
 
Ayer, MA 01432 
 
 
/s/ Lee H. Vilker________________  
 
LEE H. VILKER 
Assistant U. S. Attorney,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U. S. Attorney's Office 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
50 Kennedy Plaza, 8th Floor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Providence, RI 02903 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
401-709-5000, 401-709-5001 (fax) 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00074-MSM-LDA   Document 111   Filed 11/16/22   Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1055

File and source

File

017_ECF_111_gov.uscourts.rid.49679.111.0.pdf

Size

155,413 bytes

SHA-256

1df1dc43ffd756733b9225e7e8d8272fb755fab230c9be4099ed71fa37087c97

Our copy

017_ECF_111_gov.uscourts.rid.49679.111.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)