Shepard v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
Filing
23
ORDER denying 22 Motion requesting that the undersigned recuse herself from this civil action, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 9/29/15. (djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RICHARD SHEPARD,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:13cv499-WKW
(WO)
ORDER ON MOTION
Before the court is petitioner Richard Shepard’s motion requesting that the
undersigned recuse herself from this civil action on the ground that she “has personal bias
and prejudice against Mr. Shepard and therefore could not preside with the required degree
of detached impartiality... .” (Doc. No. 22 at 1.)
Title 28 § 455(a) requires a judge to recuse “in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Section 455(b)(1) requires
a judge to recuse “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party[.]” 28
U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). “Under § 455, the standard is whether an objective, fully informed lay
observer would entertain significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.” Christo v. Padgett,
223 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).
I find that a reasonable person would not entertain significant doubt about my
impartiality in discharging my duties as a judge in this case. Any findings and rulings that
I have entered in this case have been based on the merits of the case and reached upon full
consideration of the parties’ pleadings and the record. Shepard’s claim of personal bias and
prejudice against him is unfounded.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED the Shepard’s motion for recusal (Doc. No. 22) be and is hereby
DENIED.
DONE, this 29th day of September, 2015.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker
SUSAN RUSS WALKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?