Anderson v. Groveland Police Department et al

Filing 115

ORDER denying 113 Plaintiff's Motion for Replacement of Assigned Judges and Motion for Change of Venue. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 7/26/2016. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

GEOFFREY H. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:15-cv-26-Oc-30PRL

SHERIFF GARY S. BORDERS,
JOHN MOORE, CHARLES RUSSELL,
SCOTT PENVOSE,
Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Replacement of
Assigned Judges and Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. 113). By his motion, Plaintiff
requests recusal of the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens, alleging that
recusal is appropriate because both this Court and Judge Lammens have demonstrated
prejudice against Plaintiff and favoritism toward counsel for Defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff
also requests a transfer of venue because he asserts that he cannot receive a fair trial in
Marion County, Florida, because the people of Marion County are not sufficiently
intelligent to understand the law and have demonstrated favoritism toward law
enforcement.
The grounds for recusal are enumerated under 28 U.S.C. § 455, which provides two
primary reasons for recusal. Namely, a judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any

proceeding in which (1) the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” or (2)
the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(1).
Plaintiff contends that the undersigned and Judge Lammens demonstrated partiality toward
Plaintiff by ignoring falsehoods provided by counsel for Defendants and by sanctioning
Plaintiff for a discovery violation. Plaintiff has not demonstrated bias. Rather, Plaintiff
appears to be displeased with the Court’s rulings on various issues that have arisen in this
case. This is not an adequate basis for recusal.
As to Plaintiff’s request to transfer venue, Plaintiff’s opinion as to the ability of the
potential jurors to fairly adjudicate his case does not warrant a transfer of venue.
Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Replacement of Assigned Judges and Motion for Change
of Venue (Doc. 113) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 26th day of July, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

2