Rule 63-I.Bias or Prejudice of a Judge or Magistrate Judge

Rule 63-I gives a party a concrete tool for challenging a judge's impartiality. If a party files a sufficient affidavit stating that the judge or magistrate judge assigned to hear a matter holds a personal bias or prejudice — either against that party or in favor of the opposing party — the rule does not leave the decision to that same judge. The judge must proceed no further, and another judge or magistrate judge is assigned under Rule 40-I to take over the proceeding. The mechanism mirrors the federal judicial-recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 144, which the District's courts have long looked to for guidance.

The rule sets real requirements for the affidavit so it cannot be used to delay a case on a whim. It must state the specific facts and reasons behind the belief that bias or prejudice exists, not just a bare accusation, and it must come with a certificate from counsel of record affirming that the affidavit is filed in good faith. Timing matters too: the affidavit must be filed at least 24 hours before the hearing on the matter, unless the party filing it can show good cause for filing later.

Because the rule takes the decision out of the challenged judge's hands entirely — reassignment follows automatically from a sufficient, timely affidavit rather than from that judge's own ruling on the accusation — it functions as a genuine check on the appearance of partiality, not merely a request the sitting judge can brush aside.