This is two sections of an informal appellate brief I filed in the Ninth Circuit, Cir. Case No. 22-56003. The COA does not require citation to caselaw by a pro se litigant.:

Whether the Southern District of California exhibited a personal bias against me. [Attorney LaToya] Redd wrote by email to me that the rulings on my case “absolutely” gave the court the appearance of bias.

I filed a motion for recusal of Judge Sammartino, Doc. 153. The case was transferred before a decision on the merits and ordered “denied as moot”, Doc. 173, 174. The court erred when it failed to decide the issue on the merits then adopted the decisions of the apparently biased Judge as “law of the case”.

All decisions subsequent are tainted.

Some but not all the court’s legal errors are addressed in other sections. The appellate court can look through the entire record to assess if there is an appearance of bias. The totality of the record shows the court absolutely appeared to be biased.

Ruling with an appearance of bias violates the most fundamental Constitutional right to present grievances, have them adjudicated fairly with equal protection and due process. It makes every “opinion” that allows for discretion questionable. This includes the big picture of whether to dismiss the complaint. It includes all the building blocks that came to that conclusion, such as whether the defendants were reasonable to deny an accounting and dissolution.

**************************************************************

I followed up with eleven more sections that described specific rulings. Most defy all logic. The few that could have gone either way were always found in favor of my represented adversaries.

Stay tuned for a posting of each section of issues and law, or read it all now by downloading a copy below.