## Facts

- Barbie Black, a federal prisoner, sued the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and its Medical Director, Dr. Newton E. Kendig, challenging the denial of estrogen therapy.
- The case was referred to a magistrate judge for settlement efforts; the magistrate judge engaged in extensive, confidential settlement activity, including meeting Black at the prison to finalize settlement details.
- The district judge accepted a settlement agreement; later, Black moved to reinstate the complaint and sought injunctive and other relief, asserting noncompliance with the settlement.
- The dispute centered on a settlement provision (paragraph 5) requiring Kendig to review several treatment plans (including an outside expert’s plan) and “then decide which plan, or combination of plans, will be offered to plaintiff.”
- Black contended paragraph 5 required Kendig to adopt one of the recommended plans; defendants contended it required only consideration, leaving Kendig free to reject recommendations.
- Defendants moved to recuse the magistrate judge from handling the post-settlement dispute after the case was re-referred for a report and recommendation.

## Issues

1. Whether the magistrate judge’s prior, confidential settlement involvement required recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 when later asked to address a dispute over the settlement’s meaning.

## Decision

- The magistrate judge granted the motion for recusal.
- The court concluded that continued participation risked (and appeared to risk) reliance on extra-record personal knowledge of the parties’ settlement intentions.
- The court determined that an objective observer could reasonably question impartiality given the magistrate judge’s deep involvement in negotiating and finalizing the settlement terms at issue.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must disqualify himself when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, applying an objective reasonable-observer standard.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1), disqualification is required where the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.
- When a post-settlement dispute turns on the parties’ intent during confidential settlement negotiations, a judge who presided over those negotiations may need to recuse to avoid adjudication based on extra-record knowledge and to preserve the appearance of impartiality.

## Conclusion

The court required recusal because the magistrate judge’s extensive, confidential settlement role created both a risk of relying on personal knowledge in interpreting the settlement and a reasonable appearance of partiality under § 455.


Black v. Kendig, 227 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D.D.C. 2002)