Opposition to Motion to Recuse — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 256)

Summary

Opposition to Motion to Recuse, filed May 21, 2025 as Document 256, Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW, United States v. Nathan Reardon, District of Maine. The Government opposes Defendant Nathan Reardon's Motion for Recusal of the Honorable Lance E. Walker (Dkt. #243), filed in the criminal docket and seeking recusal from the pending § 2255 proceeding, and asks that it be denied as frivolous. It states that Defendant's claims of "extrajudicial influence" are belied by the record of the November 2, 2022 and October 13, 2023 sentencings, and that the Motion is Defendant's second recusal motion. It states that Defendant has filed eight related civil actions this year and that his status as a serial litigator may warrant filing restrictions. It is signed /s/ ANDREW K. LIZOTTE, AUSA.

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

Cite this document

“Opposition to Motion to Recuse — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 256).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-d-me-no-1-21-cr-00061-dkt-256-6038929580/, SHA-256 7d145dc5857e76672afefca2b15b119b2451bd73b5f6fea747844b68362b8cf5.

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 256 Filed 05/21/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
1630

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW

NATHAN REARDON

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO RECUSE

The Government, by and through undersigned counsel, opposes Defendant

Nathan Reardon’s Motion for Recusal of the Honorable Lance E. Walker. Dkt. #243,

May 8, 2025 (the “Motion” or “Mot.”).1 The Court should deny the Motion as frivolous.

Defendant submits that during his “sentencing proceedings” the Court “admitted

on the record to being influenced by extrajudicial media reports, specifically coverage by

the Bangor Daily News.” Mot. at 1. The Court, Defendant contends, purportedly “relied

upon community perceptions fueled by these media reports when forming opinions

about [Defendant’s] character, culpability, and violation severity.” Id. at 2. Defendant’s

recusal request—although filed in his underlying criminal docket—seeks recusal “from

[his] § 2255 proceeding. See id. at 2; see also Civil Docket 1:25-cv-00232-LEW (pending

§ 2255 matter).

Defendant’s claims of “extrajudicial influence” are belied by the record. At

Defendant’s initial sentencing on November 2, 2022, the Court “adopt[ed] the revised

presentence investigation report in its entirety as constituting [its] findings.” See

Sentencing Tr. at 41, Dkt. #166. At Defendant’s supervised release revocation sentencing

on October 13, 2023, the Court “adopt[ed] the [revocation] report in its entirety as

1 This is Defendant’s second recusal motion. See Dkt. ##210, 214.

1
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 256 Filed 05/21/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
1631

constituting [its] findings,” and “reviewed that report and [took] the contents of that

report into account. . . in determining a sentence.” See Revocation Sentencing Tr. at 21,

Dkt. #192. No mention was made in either proceeding to “extrajudicial media reports,”

the Bangor Daily News, or any other news media coverage. What Defendant may be

referencing is his resentencing on remand, which occurred on July 23, 2024, for which

no transcript is presently available. Dkt. #200. Even if reference was made to news

coverage of Defendant’s repeated criminal conduct during his resentencing, however,

that proceeding was in no way influenced—Defendant received the same sentence then

as he did on the first go-around. Compare Dkt. #200 (July 23, 2024), with Dkt. #155

(Nov. 2, 2022).

No basis for recusal therefore exists under the general standard of 28 U.S.C. §

455. See id. § 455(a) (“[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall

disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned”). While the statute “forbids not only the reality of partiality but its objective

appearance as well,” see United States v. Snyder, 235 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2000), such

concerns are wholly absent from this case.

Defendant’s fallback argument that the Court “has ‘personal knowledge of

disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding’” is similarly baseless. Mot. at 2

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1)). “Facts learned by a judge while acting in his judicial

capacity”—which are the only facts at issue here—“cannot serve as a basis for

disqualification on account of personal bias.” United States v. Kelley, 712 F.2d 884, 889

(1st Cir. 1983). Nor, relatedly, are there any conceivable circumstances under which the

Court could later be a witness to any proceeding here. Defendant has not shown that the

Court has special knowledge of any evidentiary facts, much less identified an actual

2
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 256 Filed 05/21/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
1632

dispute. Defendant’s § 455(b)(1) challenge fails for this reason, “otherwise, [he] or any

other [litigant] could engage in endless judge shopping merely by claiming” personal

bias or prejudice. See Kuperman v. New Hampshire, 09-cv-66-JD, 2009 WL 1026413,

at *2 (D.N.H. Apr. 15, 2009).

Finally, the Government emphasizes that this Motion is part of a broader effort

by Defendant to frivolously relitigate his underlying criminal case. See, e.g., Order, Dkt.

# 241 at 1, Apr. 29, 2025 (disposing of five motions filed by Defendant in 1:21-cr-00061-

LEW). In this single calendar year alone, Defendant also has filed eight related civil

actions, naming as defendants the Chief U.S. District Judge, U.S. Probation Officers, the

former United States Attorney, the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, the

United States of America, the Bangor Daily News, and various John Does. See D. Me.

Dockets 1:25-cv-00154-LEW, 1:25-cv-00232, 1:25-cv-00187-NT, 1:25-cv-00188-MSM,

1:25-cv-00191-NT, 1:25-cv-00235, 1:25-cv-00243, and 1:25-cv-00244-NT. Defendant’s

status as a serial litigator may warrant the imposition of filing restrictions, in order to

allocate limited judicial resources and promote the interests of justice. In re McDonald,

489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (“[t]he continual processing of . . . frivolous [filings] does not

promote [the interests of justice]”); Cok v. Fam. Ct. of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 34-35 (1st Cir.

1993) (courts may impose filing restrictions after providing abusive litigants notice and

an opportunity to be heard).

In the final analysis, the Motion presents precisely the kind of “unsupported,

irrational, or highly tenuous speculation” the First Circuit has identified as being

insufficient grounds for recusal. In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981);

see also United States v. Gottesfeld, 18 F.4th 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting United States

v. Bayless, 201 F.3d 116, 127 (2d Cir. 2000)) (recusal not required on the basis of

3
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 256 Filed 05/21/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
1633

“remote, contingent, indirect[,] or speculative interests”). As this Court has previously

ruled, “[t]he sentencing rulings that have so upset [Defendant] have been imposed as a

consequence of his conduct and behavior,” rather than “personal bias or prejudice.” Dkt.

#214 at 2, Oct. 2, 2024. Because there is no reasonable question about the Court’s

impartiality, the Motion should be denied.

Dated: May 21, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
Bangor, Maine
CRAIG M. WOLFF
Acting United States Attorney

/s/ ANDREW K. LIZOTTE
Andrew K. Lizotte, AUSA
United States Attorney’s Office
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, Maine 04401
(207) 262-4636
Andrew.Lizotte@usdoj.gov

4
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 256 Filed 05/21/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
1634

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 21, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and caused a copy via first-class mail to be
sent to the following:
Nathan Reardon, P.O. Box 52, Detroit, ME 04929

CRAIG M. WOLFF
Acting United States Attorney

/s/ ANDREW K. LIZOTTE
Andrew K. Lizotte, AUSA
United States Attorney’s Office
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, Maine 04401
(207) 262-4636
Andrew.Lizotte@usdoj.gov

File and source

File: 256.pdf
Size: 116,273 bytes
SHA-256: 7d145dc5857e76672afefca2b15b119b2451bd73b5f6fea747844b68362b8cf5
Our copy: 256.pdf
Original: No public link identified.