Downer v. Health Management Associates, Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER of recusal. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell recused. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 5/31/2013. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EMILY DOWNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:12-cv-580-Ftm-38DNF

HEALTH MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. Under 28 U.S.C. §
455(a), "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Any doubt "must be resolved in favor of recusal." See Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308,
1310 (11th Cir. 2001).

When considering recusal, the potential conflict must be

considered as it applies to the entire case. Id. at 1310-11. A judge contemplating
recusal should not ask whether he or she believes he or she is capable of impartially
presiding over the case but whether “[the judge’s] impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.” Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988).
However, a judge has 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.

United States vs.

Malmsberry, 222 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing United States vs. Greenspan,
26 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 1994)).

Section 28 U.S.C. 455(b) spells out certain situations in which partiality is
presumed and recusal is required.1 After reviewing the explicitly enumerated conflicts
of interest in which recusal is mandatory under section 455(b), if the Court does not find
that any apply, the judge is obligated to continue to preside over the case. See Lawal v
Winners International Rests Co. Ops., Inc., 2006 WL 898180 at * 4 (N.D. Ga. April 6,
2006) (holding a trial judge has as much obligation not to recuse herself when there is
no reason to do so as she does to recuse herself when the converse is true).
In this instance, the Undersigned has a conflict of interest that falls under one of
the enumerated conflicts of interest in which recusal is mandatory.

As such, the

Undersigned must recuse from this case.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
The Undersigned is hereby RECUSED from the instant case. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to reassign the case to another District Judge.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 31st day of May, 2013.

1

Subsection 455 (b)(1) requires a judge to disqualify himself “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning
a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”; 455 (b)(2): “[w]here in
private practice [the judge] served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously
practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been
a material witness concerning it.”; 455 (b)(3): where the judge “served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion
concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”; 455(b)(4): where a judge “knows that he, individually
or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter
in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding.”; or 455(b)(5)(i): “[w]here he or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of
relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person... [i]s party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or
trustee of a party.”; 455(b)(5)(ii): where the judge “or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship
to either of them, or the spouse of such a person... is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding.”

Copies: All Parties of Record

2