Is a judge's impartiality under Rule 41(b) barred?

A judge must "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. 455(a). ⁷ Hagans questions the judge's impartiality on a number of grounds. First, she points to a comment that the judge made during the course of the trial. In discussing with counsel whether Hagans had encountered any sexual discrimination before she applied for the assistant manager's job, the judge said, "she went a long ways as a woman before that." This comment is insufficient to require recusal. The discussion of whether Hagans claimed any sexual discrimination prior to her application for the new job was relevant to the case. In that context ⁸ the comment did not create a reasonable ground for questioning the judge's impartiality. See United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1980).

Hagans also claims that the judge's bias is the only explanation for his granting the government's Rule 41(b) motion, and for his refusal to accord "any weight" to her evidence. This claim is without merit. It is not a ground for disqualification that the judge has ruled against the moving party or that he may have committed an error of law. United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869 (9th Cir. 1980).