Martin v. SkyWest Airlines

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MICHAEL MARTIN on behalf of M.M.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SKYWEST AIRLINES,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENING MOTION FOR
RECUSAL (DOC. NO. 12)
Case No. 2:25-cv-00764
District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Proceeding without an attorney, Michael Martin brought this case against
SkyWest Airlines on behalf of his minor child, M.M.1 After being ordered to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing,2 Mr. Martin filed a motion
asking the undersigned to recuse from the case.3 He generally argues there have been
First Amendment violations, although it is unclear by whom. He also contends he has a
“duty to protect the best interest of a person”—presumably, M.M.4
1 (Compl., Doc. No. 1.)
2 (See Order to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of
Standing 1, Doc. No. 8 (explaining Mr. Martin asserts no claims of his own and lacks
standing to pursue claims on behalf of his minor child without an attorney).)
3 (Mot. for Recusal (Mot.), Doc. No. 12.)
4 (Id. at 1–2.) Mr. Martin identifies no statutory or legal authority in his motion.
Case 2:25-cv-00764-HCN-DAO Document 18 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
Construing Mr. Martin’s motion liberally,5 he may be seeking disqualification
under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 455 requires any “justice, judge, or magistrate judge of
the United States” to disqualify herself if certain circumstances exist, most notably, “in
any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”6 A judge
has a “continuing duty to recuse” if she “concludes that sufficient factual grounds exist
to cause an objective observer reasonably to question the judge’s impartiality.”7 But
“[r]umor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion, and similar
non-factual matters” are “not ordinarily sufficient to require [§] 455(a) recusal.”8 Further,
“rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”9
Mr. Martin has not shown a basis for disqualification. He identifies no factual
matters supporting disqualification or requiring recusal. He merely states he has a duty
to protect his child’s best interest and generally claims there have been constitutional
violations (without further explanation). As noted in the order to show cause, Mr. Martin
cannot, as a non-attorney, bring claims on behalf of a minor child without an attorney.10
5 Because Mr. Martin proceeds pro se, his filings are liberally construed and held “to a
less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
6 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
7 United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 992 (10th Cir. 1993).
8 Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
9 United States v. Walker, 838 F. App’x 333, 337 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (quoting
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)).
10 See Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000) (“A
litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of
Case 2:25-cv-00764-HCN-DAO Document 18 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
The order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed on these grounds does
not provide a valid basis to question the court’s impartiality.
In other words, Mr. Martin has not shown any factual grounds exist to cause an
objective observer to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality. He fails to
demonstrate grounds for recusal. Accordingly, Mr. Martin’s motion11 is denied.
DATED this 1st day of December, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Daphne A. Oberg
United States Magistrate Judge
others.”); Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986) (“[U]nder Fed. R. Civ.
P. 17(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1654, a minor child cannot bring suit through a parent acting
as next friend if the parent is not represented by an attorney.”).
11 (Doc. No. 12.)
Case 2:25-cv-00764-HCN-DAO Document 18 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3