Bowman v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority et al

Filing 7

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 JANET BOWMAN, Plaintiff, v. LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. 12-cv-196-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER *** The undersigned has received a five page document, dated July 4, referenced 2012, from matter. Plaintiff While she with respect discusses at to the length above- what she 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, Judgment with respect to denial undersigned’s recusal [DE 4, 6]. of her motion for the 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. As explained before, even if her statement is true, it would not require my recusal for she “impartiality 455(a). has might suggested reasonably no be facts upon questioned.” which 28 my U.S.C. § To the extent that Plaintiff now asks this Court to reconsider that identified no appropriate. decision, grounds it upon declines to which do such so for relief she has would be 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 there is ‘(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered 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. Plaintiff’s latest papers, however, approach than her earlier pleadings. take a different She makes a series of scurrilous and disparaging remarks about the undersigned which appear to be engendered by her disagreement with the Court’s decisions in this case. First and foremost, the Court has considered whether her accusations and epithets would require the undersigned’s recusal with respect to her present request for relief. They do not because it is well established that: ‘[T]he mere fact that a defendant has made derogatory remarks about a judge is insufficient to convince a sane and 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 scurrilous and disparaging remarks or 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. herself accordingly. 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 (2) 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.