Bernath v. Seavey

Filing 266

ORDER denying 264 Plaintiff Daniel Bernath's Motion to Recuse the undersigned. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 10/18/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DANIEL A. BERNATH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-358-FtM-38CM

MARK CAMERON SEAVEY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Daniel Bernath’s Motion to Recuse
the undersigned. (Doc. 264). Bernath, appearing pro se, filed a complaint against
Defendants alleging various trademark infringement and fraud claims. He now moves to
disqualify the undersigned for ruling against him and declaring him a vexatious litigant.
(Doc. 264).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge “shall disqualify h[er]self in any
proceeding in which h[er] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Any doubt “must
be resolved in favor of recusal.” 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. See id. at 1310-11. A judge contemplating recusal should not ask whether
she believes she is capable of impartially presiding over the case but whether “[the

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

judge’s] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855
F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988). But a judge has a duty to sit when there is no legitimate
reason to recuse as when the law and facts require. See United States v. Malmsberry,
222 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Moreover, § 455(b) provides
certain situations in which partiality is presumed and recusal is required. If the judge
reviews the enumerated conflicts of interest in which § 455(b) mandates recusal, and
does not find that any apply, the judge is obligated to continue to preside over the case.
See Lawal v. Winners Int’l Rests Co. Ops., Inc., No. 1:04-cv-0913-WSD, 2006 WL 898180
at *4 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 6, 2006).
Based on the foregoing and having carefully considered Bernath’s motion, the
undersigned finds that there is no reason to recuse herself due to impartiality.

The

undersigned thus is obligated to continue to preside over this case.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff Daniel Bernath’s Motion to Recuse the undersigned (Doc. 264) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 18th day of October, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2