U.S. Commodity Futures Trading v. Gordo Driver

MEMORANDUM

Gordon Driver appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in an action filed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and related regulations arising out of an alleged Ponzi scheme. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for plain error a district court’s failure to recuse itself sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 . United States v. Spangle, 626 F.3d 488, 495 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court did not commit plain error by failing to recuse itself sua sponte from hearing Driver’s requests to release previously frozen assets and the CFTC’s motion for summary judgment. See id. (setting forth plain error standard of review when a party does not seek recusal before the trial court). The isolated comments' by the district court upon which Driver relies to support his arguments do not establish the bias or partiality warranting recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 , 114 S.Ct. 1147 , 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (“[Jjudicial remarks during the course of ... [proceedings] that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases,…