IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY, RIDGEWAY
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
The Courageous, Kind-Hearted, and
Honorable JAMESGARDAI, in his
individual capacity as an employee of the
Ridgeway County Sheriff's Office,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CV-8708
MOTION TO RECUSE
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECUSE
Defendant JamesGardai, proceeding in pro per, hereby moves to recuse Hon. Judge
Arthur_Chen from the above-entitled matter.
ARGUMENT
I. JUDGE ARTHUR_CHEN IS OBLIGATED TO RECUSE
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires recusal when “there is a
serious risk of actual bias.” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009). Indeed, the
Supreme Court of the United States has long “recognized the ‘vital state interest’ in
safeguarding ‘public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the nation's [...] judges.’”
Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656, 1666 (2015). The appearance of bias is let alone
enough to necessitate a recusal. See Liljeberg v. Health Svcs. Acq. Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988).
See Rippo v. Baker, 580 US —, —, 137 S. Ct. 905, 907, 197 L.Ed.2d 167 (2017) (per curiam)
(“Our precedents require recusal where the ‘probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or
decision maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.’) (quoting Withrow v. Larkin, 421
U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975)).
Here, Judge Arthur_Chen has stated the following in relation to material facts regarding
this case, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s alleged imposition of administrative leave and
conduct while on-duty as a Probationary Sheriff’s Deputy:
James literly [sic] went rouge [sic] this morning dude and didn't stop arresting people
even after being put on AL
In keeping with the aim of “‘promot[ing] confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even
the appearance of impropriety whenever possible,’” United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317,
1321 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847,
865 (1988)), recusal turns on “whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully
informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would
entertain a significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.” United States v. Scrushy, 721
F.3d 1288, 1303 (11th Cir. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[A]ny doubts
must be resolved in favor of recusal.” Patti, 337 F.3d at 1321.
By characterizing Defendant as having “gone rogue” and accepting as fact that
Defendant engaged in improper arrests and was on administrative leave, the Court has expressed
a view on disputed factual matters central to the case. Such statements create, at minimum, an
appearance that the Court has prejudged Defendant’s conduct, and would cause a reasonable
observer to question the Court’s impartiality.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: 02/26/2026
/s/ JAMESGARDAI
Newfounding Father
HOUSE OF GARDAI1
Rid. Bar. No. 10244
Gardai Island
United States Virgin Islands
DD fishfromocean
Counsel of Record
1 An unincorporated association.
