Farquharson et al v. Hansell et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 3 motion for recusal.. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/10/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
EARLTON FARQUHARSON; and
BEULAH FARQUHARSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-745-Orl-37KRS

ROBERT (BOB) E. HANSELL;
OSCEOLA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE; MICHAEL FUREY; CASEY
CLOUCHETE; ARIC R. JOHNSON;
LARRY SAVEDEGE; ROBERT SMITH;
KEVIN WILKINSON; TIFFANY
LEBLANC; JANE DOE;
BRIGHTHOUSE NETWORKS
FLORIDA, LLC; STEVE MIRON; NOMI
BERGMAN; BILL FUTERA; JOE
DURKIN; TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.;
ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE
PARTNERSHIP; and CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS,
Defendants.

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ [sic] Farquharsons’ Notice and Motion
to Prevent Prejudicial Treatment Requiring the Court to Change the Judge on its Own, or
in the Alternative, This is a Motion for Recusal of Twice Randomly Assigned Judge”
(Doc. 3), filed May 3, 2016. Upon consideration and for the reasons stated herein,
Plaintiffs’ motion is due to be denied.
On February 27, 2015, Plaintiffs brought suit against several defendants, asserting
state and federal claims arising from the foreclosure of their home. See Farquaharson et
al. v. Cititbank, NA. et al., 6:15-cv-00211-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2015) (“Prior

Action”). Upon the filing of Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Clerk of Court randomly assigned the
Prior Action to the Undersigned. Id. Several months into the proceedings, Plaintiffs filed
an interlocutory appeal, effectuating a stay of the Prior Action, which is currently pending
on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Id.
On April 29, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the current action, which was also randomly
assigned to the Undersigned (“Instant Action”). (See Doc. 1.) Consequently, Plaintiffs
request that the Court reassign the Instant Action to a different judge or, alternatively, that
the Court recuse himself from the Instant Action. (Doc. 3 (“Motion”).) The stated grounds
for Plaintiffs’ Motion are that the parties—primarily Plaintiffs—are prejudiced by the
assignment of the Instant Action to the Undersigned based on the Plaintiffs’ Prior Action
before the Undersigned. (Id.)
Although the Court “may, at any time, reassign a case to any other consenting
judge” see Local Rule 1.03(d), Plaintiffs fail to provide a basis for the Court to reassign
the Instant Action. Moreover, recusal is appropriate if the federal judge’s “impartiality
might reasonably be questioned” or where 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). To determine whether a judge’s impartiality might
be questioned, the Court must consider “whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer
fully informed of the facts on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt
about the judge’s impartiality.” United States v. Chandler, 996 F.2d 1073, 1104
(11th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiffs’ Motion is premised solely on their presumption that the Court will develop
“some form of feelings . . . about the Farquharsons” based on the Prior Action.

2

(Doc. 3, ¶ 3.) This is an insufficient basis for recusal. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, the Clerk
of Court randomly assigned the Prior Action and the Instant Action to the Undersigned
pursuant to Local Rule 1.03(b), and the Actions are wholly unrelated. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 10–11.)
Therefore, Plaintiffs essentially request that this Court allow it to circumvent the randomassignment provided by Local Rule 1.03(b) based on their unfounded and unsupported
belief that the Undersigned will not act fairly or impartially while presiding over their two
cases. Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that would lead an objective observer to
question the impartiality of the randomly assigned judge. See Chandler, 996 F.2d at 1104;
see also Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Dogali, No. 8:09-cv-1193-T-27EAJ, 2011 WL 2971031,
at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2011) (explaining that the inquiry for recusal shall be “made from
the perspective of a ‘well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the
hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person”) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that “Plaintiffs’ [sic]
Farquharsons’ Notice and Motion to Prevent Prejudicial Treatment Requiring the Court to
Change the Judge on its Own, or in the Alternative, This is a Motion for Recusal of Twice
Randomly Assigned Judge” (Doc. 3) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 10, 2016.

3

Copies:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

4