Noble v. Stark et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/22/2018. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re:
THOMAS E. NOBLE,

Misc. Action No. 18-111-RGA

Movant.

THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Petitioner,
v.

CHIEF JUDGE LEONARD STARK,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM
1.

Introduction.

Movant Thomas A. Noble ("Movant"), a pro se litigant

incarcerated at FDC Philadelphia, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sought leave to file a
new complaint as required by an order enjoining him from filing any pro se civil rights
complaints without prior approval of this Court.

See Noble v. Becker, Civ. No. 03-906-

KAJ, D.I. 12. On April 30, 2018, I denied Movant leave to file a new complaint.
7).

(D.I. 6,

Movant has now filed a motion to correct category of this case and to enjoin the

Clerk of Court from assigning his cases (D.I. 8), a motion to file only one copy of all
documents and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (D.I. 10) and a motion to stay
and vacate order and to enjoin me from further adjudicating the case (D.I. 12).
2.

Case Assignment and Injunction.

Movant complains that this action

was improperly opened as a miscellaneous matter rather than as a civil action.

(D.I. 8).

Movant must receive permission before filing a pro se civil rights action. This requires

that the matter be opened as a miscellaneous matter.

Movant also seeks to enjoin the

Clerk of Court from assigning any of his cases and from assigning his cases to judges in
this court. (Id.)
3.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show: "(1) a likelihood of

success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied;
(3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving
party; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief." Kos Pharm. v. Andrx Corp.,
369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004). Movant has not met the requisites for injunctive
relief. The motion will be denied.
4.

Filing Documents and In Forma Pauperis.

Movant seeks leave to file

only one copy of all documents and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Movant

was not given leave to file a civil complaint and this matter is closed. The motion will
be dismissed as moot.
5.

Motion to Stay, Vacate, and Enjoin.

ethically adjudicate this case.

Movant contends that I cannot

He also asserts that only an impartial district court judge

designated by the Supreme Court and not under the jurisdiction of United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, can ethically adjudicate the case.

In essence, he

seeks my recusal
6.

A judge is required to recuse himself "in any proceeding in which his

impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The test for recusal
under§ 455(a) is whether a "reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would
conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," In re Kensington

2

~

!

f

1:

I

I
l

I

I

Int'/ Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004), not "whether a judge actually harbors bias

against a party," United States v. Kennedy, 682 F.3d 244, 258 (3d Cir. 2012).

Under

§ 455(b)(1 ), a judge is required to recuse himself "[w]here he has a personal bias or

prejudice concerning a party."
7.

Under either subsection, the bias necessary to require recusal generally

"must stem from a source outside of the official proceedings."

Liteky v. United States,

510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994); Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 155,
167 (3d Cir. 2004) (beliefs or opinions which merit recusal must involve an extrajudicial
factor).

Hence, "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or

partiality motion." Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
8.

Movant takes exception to this Court's judicial rulings.

This serves as his

only basis to seek recusal. A reasonable, well-informed observer could not believe that
the rulings were based on impartiality, bias, or actual prejudice by the undersigned.
Nor do my rulings demonstrate the Court acting in such manner when ruling in the
cases wherein Movant is a party. After careful and deliberate consideration, I have
concluded that the Court has no actual bias or prejudice towards Movant and that a
reasonable, well-informed observer would not question the· Court's impartiality.

In light

of the foregoing standard and after considering Movant's assertions, the undersigned
concludes that there are no grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455.

Finally, a stay

is not warranted and there is no basis to vacate orders entered in this matter.
9.

Conclusion.

For the above reasons, the Court will deny Movant's motion

to correct category of this case and to enjoin Clerk (D.I. 8) and motion to stay and

3

vacate order and to enjoin (D.I. 12) and will dismiss as moot his motion for leave to file
one copy of all documents and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (D.I. 10). An
appropriate order will be entered.

4