Silverton Mountain Guides, LLC v. United States Forest Service

── Silverton Mountain Guides, LLC v. United States Forest Service ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 4 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SILVERTON MOUNTAIN GUIDES, LLC, No. 25-1384 an Alaska limited liability company, D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:22-cv-00048-SLG District of Alaska, v. Anchorage UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an MEMORANDUM* agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Defendant - Appellee PULSELINE ADVENTURE, LLC, Intervenor-Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 20, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Silverton Mountain Guides, LLC (“Silverton”) appeals the denial of its motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) on the basis that then-Judge Kindred was required to recuse himself in Silverton’s petition for judicial review of the U.S. Forest Service’s denial of its special use permit for helicopter skiing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The district court concluded that then-Judge Kindred was not required to recuse himself and denied Silverton’s motion under Rule 60(b)(6). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district courts conclusion that then-Judge Kindred was not required to recuse himself for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mikhel, 889 F.3d 1003, 1025 (9th Cir. 2018). We also review the denial of the motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) for abuse of discretion. Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th Cir. 2019). “Abuse-of-discretion review is highly deferential to the district court.” Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872, 881 (9th Cir. 2012). Under the abuse of discretion standard, we reverse only when convinced that “the reviewed decision lies beyond the pale of reasonable justification under the circumstances.” Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim, 840 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2016). However, “[a] district court abuses its discretion when it applies the incorrect legal standard or if its application of the correct legal standard was illogical, implausible, or without support from the facts in the record.” United States v. Williams, 68 F.4th 564, 571 (9th Cir. 2023). 2  “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself [or herself] in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) is available for § 455(a) violations in “extraordinary circumstances” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 862–64 (1988). Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we will not recount it here. We affirm the district court. I In Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that the § 455(a) determination that recusal is required rests upon the “appearance” of impartiality rather than its actual existence. There are two situations in which the appearance of partiality may rise to the level requiring recusal: (1) when a judge forms opinions or bias based on “knowledge acquired outside [the judicial] proceed