Waller v. Taylor et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 12 Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge; granting 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; Plaintiff is directed to file his Amended Complaint on or before 7/1/2013. Plaintiff is reminded that failure to timely reply will result in the dismissal of his action pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 06/17/2013. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

KENNETH L. WALLER,
ADC #103829
V.

PLAINTIFF
5:13CV00030 JLH/JTR

LORIE A. TAYLOR; and
RANDY BUDNIK;
Disciplinary Hearing Officers,
Arkansas Department of Correction

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Kenneth L. Waller, is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this § 1983
action. He has recently filed two Motions, which the Court will address separately.
I. Motion to Disqualify Judge
Plaintiff has filed a Motion arguing that I should recuse because I have entered
unfavorably rulings against him in this lawsuit, as well as in Waller v. Kelley,
1:11CV00095 JLH/JTR.
A judge must "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Because a judge is presumed
to be impartial, the "party seeking disqualification bears the substantial burden of
proving otherwise." Am. Prairie Constr. Co. v. Hoich, 594 F.3d 1015, 1022 (8th Cir.
2010); U.S. v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104, 1111 (8th Cir. 2006). Additionally, the Eighth

Circuit has clarified that a judge's rulings in the current or prior proceeding "do not
constitute a basis for a bias or partiality" unless the rulings "display a deep-seated
favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Id.
Plaintiff has not made any such showing. Further, I do not have any such
impartiality or antagonism toward Plaintiff. Rather, my rulings have been based upon
an impartial application of the law to the facts and circumstances presented in this
case. Thus, the Motion to Disqualify is denied.
II. Motion for an Extension of Time
Plaintiff has filed a Motion seeking an additional twenty days to file his
Amended Complaint. See Doc. #14. The Court finds good cause for granting that
request. Accordingly, the Motion for an Extension of Time is granted.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge (Doc. #12) is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. #14) is GRANTED,

and he must file his Amended Complaint on or before July 1, 2013.
3.

Plaintiff is reminded, as explained in the May 17, 2013 Order, that his

failure to timely do so will result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule
5.5(c)(2).
-2-

Dated this 17th day of June, 2013.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-