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, )

Download PDF
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?