Wojdacz v. Colorado Springs City Police Department et al.
ORDER denying 103 Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty from Presiding Further in the Above Captioned Case Due to Fraud Upon the Court. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/2/13. (kfinn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01483-REB-MEH
COLORADO SPRINGS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
COMMANDER BRIAN GRADY,
OFFICER JOHN IRELAND,
PENROSE ST. FRANCIS HEALTHCARE,
GARY LEE NORMAN,
MICHAEL J. DUNCAN, and
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Remove Magistrate Judge Michael E.
Hegarty from Presiding Further in the Above Captioned Case Due to Fraud Upon the Court [filed
December 21, 2012; docket #103]. Plaintiff requests that I recuse myself from this case due to
alleged bias and impartiality. Because I am a United States Magistrate Judge, I will consider her
motion under the appropriate standard of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which provides, in pertinent part,
“[a]ny . . . magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
The standard for impartiality under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is an objective one, requiring recusal
only if “a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge’s
impartiality.” United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In this
case, recusal is not appropriate. Based on the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s recent motion, she has not
demonstrated that a reasonable person would question my impartiality. Plaintiff’s entire argument
centers around her displeasure with my rulings and her desire to have United States District Judge
Robert E. Blackburn rule on her motions. However, Judge Blackburn has referred these motions
to me pursuant to the Local Rules, and “adverse rulings cannot in themselves form the appropriate
grounds for disqualification.” Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1305 (10th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s
arguments are an insufficient basis for recusal. See United States v. Greenspan, 26 F.3d 1001, 1005
(10th Cir. 1994) (holding that a judge has just as strong a duty to sit when there is no legitimate
reason to recuse as he does to recuse when the law and facts require).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Remove Magistrate
Judge Michael E. Hegarty from Presiding Further in the Above Captioned Case Due to Fraud Upon
the Court [filed December 21, 2012; docket #103] is denied..
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2013, in Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge
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?