Hearn v. International Business Machines

Filing 40

ORDER denying 39 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Demand for Jury Trial and for Substitution. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 1/10/2014. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BETTY HEARN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:13-cv-827-T-30EAJ

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES, MARGARET (PEGGY)
BUIS, DAVID ALLCOCK and RUSSELL
MANDEL,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration, Demand for Jury Trial and for Substitution (Dkt. #39). Upon review and
consideration, it is the Court’s conclusion that the Motion should be denied.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for New Trial, Altering or Amending Judgment (Dkt. # 33)
which this Court construed as a motion for reconsideration of its Order dismissing
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice (Dkt. # 32). The Court denied
Plaintiff’s Motion noting that Plaintiff had not alleged a sufficient basis for reconsideration
of its dismissal order. (Dkt. # #38). Plaintiff’s current Motion states the same basis for
reconsideration as Plaintiff’s previous motion, and does not raise any new arguments for
the Court to consider. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration.

Plaintiff also moves for the judge’s recusal on the basis of “cognitive bias, such that
these Judges have more respect for IBM’s image and expensive lawyer than Hearn’s basic
rights.” Hearn essentially argues that that this Court’s adverse judicial rulings demonstrate
a bias against her. Adverse rulings, however, do not constitute a basis for disqualification.
See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994) (“judicial rulings alone almost
never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). The adverse rulings are
proper grounds for appeal, not recusal. Id. Further, opinions held by judges as a result of
what they learned in earlier proceedings do not constitute bias or prejudice. Id. at 551.
Therefore, Hearn has not established a proper basis for disqualification.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration, Demand for Jury Trial and for Substitution (Dkt. #39) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of January, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2013\13-cv-827 39 reconsideration and recusal.docx

2