context: However, the Court's last substantive ruling in the Sataki civil action was issued on July 7, 2010 -- more than two-and-a-half weeks pri- or to the filing of the instant Motion to Disqualify. Once again, Klayman offers no explanation for this delay. In such circumstances, D.C. Circuit precedent counsels that an unexplained delay of this length renders the filing of his Affidavit for disqualification untimely.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 573 F.Supp. 1237, 1244-45
citation_a.parenthetical: 12-day delay from time movant indicated probability of recusal motion to time motion was actually filed rendered motion untimely
citation_a.sentence: See also In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F.Supp. 1237, 1244-45 (D.Conn.1983) (12-day delay from time movant indicated probability of recusal motion to time motion was actually filed rendered motion untimely); Bumpus v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 385 F.Supp. 711, 712 (E.D.Pa.1974) (finding section 144 motion and affidavit untimely where based on events occurring “from two weeks to as far back as two months before”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 408 F.2d 175, 183
citation_b.parenthetical: expressing "serious doubt" about the timeliness of an affidavit based on remarks made by the judge "more than two weeks before" and a law review published by the judge "more than a year" earlier
citation_b.sentence: See Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F.2d 175, 183 (D.C.Cir. 1969) (expressing “serious doubt” about the timeliness of an affidavit based on remarks made by the judge “more than two weeks before” and a law review published by the judge “more than a year” earlier).