Bowman v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED (1) the Clerk shall file Pla's papers, dated 07/04/12, in the record; and (2) Pla's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the Court's 06/26/12 Judgment w/respect to the denial of her motion for undersigned's recusal 4 6 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 07/10/2012.(DAK)cc: COR,Pro Se Pla (via US Mail) Modified filed date on 7/11/2012 (DAK).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et
Civil Case No.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
The undersigned has received a five page document, dated
perceives to be the undersigned’s deficiencies as a judge and a
human being, the Court understands her papers to be, in part, a
motion to alter, amend, or vacate the Court’s June 26, 2012,
undersigned’s recusal [DE 4, 6].
For the reasons which follow,
her motion will be denied.
In her original motion seeking recusal of the undersigned
and assignment of this case to United States District Judge Karl
S. Forester, Plaintiff identified only one rationale for her
motion for the undersigned’s recusal:
M. Hood goes to my church.”
“[b]ecause Judge Joseph
The undersigned still does not know
whether Plaintiff’s statement is true or not.
before, even if her statement is true, it would not require my
To the extent that Plaintiff now asks this Court to
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Leisure Caviar, LLC v.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir.
2005)) (“A court can grant a motion to amend judgment only if
evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a
need to prevent manifest injustice.’”).
Accordingly and to the
extent that Plaintiff’s latest pleading constitutes a motion to
alter or amend the Court’s June 26, 2012, Judgment with respect
to the decision to deny her motion for the undersigned’s recusal
[DE 4, 6], it is denied.
approach than her earlier pleadings.
She makes a series of
scurrilous and disparaging remarks about the undersigned which
appear to be engendered by her disagreement with the Court’s
considered whether her accusations and epithets would require
the undersigned’s recusal with respect to her present request
They do not because it is well established that:
‘[T]he mere fact that a defendant has made
reasonable mind that the attacked judge is
biased or prejudiced....’” [United States
v.] Bray, 546 F.2d [851,] 858 [10th Cir.
1976]. The same is true regarding an
objective person, knowing all the facts,
assessing whether the judge's impartiality
may reasonably be questioned. Any other
conclusion would allow defendants to cause
the recusal of judges simply by making
charges about them. Permitting parties to
manipulate the system with falsehoods or
insults in such a manner would be a bizarre
application of § 455(a)…
United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 994 n. 5 (10th Cir. 1993).
Second, to the extent that Plaintiff believes that this
Court has denied her relief to which she is entitled, she can
appeal this Court’s decisions – which are final – to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
By contrast, an
ad hominem attack on the undersigned does nothing to assist
Plaintiff in achieving relief for the wrongs that she believes
she has suffered.
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that any such insulting and
disrespectful comments directed at the court in the future may
result in proceedings to determine whether she should be held in
contempt of the court.
Plaintiff should take note and govern
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) that the Clerk shall file Plaintiff’s papers, dated
July 4, 2012, in the record of this matter; and
that Plaintiff’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate the
Court’s June 26, 2012, Judgment with respect to the denial of
her motion for the undersigned’s recusal [DE 4, 6] is DENIED.
This the 10th day of July, 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.