GREEN v. SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Disqualify Judge signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 3/18/13. (tss)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DANNY ALLEN GREEN
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00018-MP-GRJ

SECRETARY, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion For Disqualification of
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. (Doc. 8.) For the reasons discussed below the motion
to disqualify is due to be denied.
Relying upon 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) Plaintiff requests that I recuse myself from this
case because Petitioner alleges that I “possess a partiality toward the State, or state
actors ... which makes an objective assessment of the issues in [Petitioner’s] petition
humanly impossible.” Petitioner points to the two orders I have entered in this case and
to a report and recommendation I entered in a previous case as evidence of bias and
prejudice.
The standard for recusal under § 455(a) is an objective one, requiring a court to
ask “whether an objective, disinterested lay observer fully informed of the facts
underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt
about the judge’s impartiality.” Bolin v Story, 225 F. 3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000). To
satisfy the requirements of § 455(a) a party must offer facts, not merely allegations, that
evidence partiality. See, United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1292 (11th Cir.

1999)(“[a] charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis ... recusal
cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation’”). A party
should not be permitted to recuse a judge on unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous
speculation. United States v. Greenough, 782 F.2d 1556, 1558 (11th Cir. 1986.) “[I]f this
occurred the price of maintaining the purity of the appearance of justice would be the
power of litigants or third parties to exercise a veto over the assignment of judges.” Id.
Plaintiff’s motion is based upon conjecture and his subjective concern rather
than upon any facts whatsoever. Notably, the motion does not point to any facts or
information suggesting bias. Rather, Petitioner points to a report and recommendation I
entered in a previous case recommending the dismissal of the petition because it was
successive and because Petitioner had failed to receive permission from the Eleventh
Circuit to file a successive habeas petition. See, Green v Tucker, Case No. 1:12-cv199-SPM-GRJ, Doc. 4. A judge’s previous rulings generally fail to justify recusal. See,
Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F. 3d 1075, 1103 (11th Cir. 2001)(“adverse rulings alone do not
provide a party with a basis for holding that the court’s impartiality is in doubt.”
Petitioner further suggests that I am biased because of the “close-knit
community of jurists in Gainesville” which “could present personal and political
difficulties enough to dissuade a local judge from exposing such wrong-doing and witchburning by local jurists who remain in office.” However, “[W]hen considering
disqualification the district court is not to use the standard of ‘Caesar’s wife,” the
standard of mere suspicion. That is because the disqualification decision must reflect
not only the need to secure public confidence through proceedings that appear
impartial, but also the need to prevent parties from too easily obtaining the
2

disqualification of a judge, thereby potentially manipulating the system for strategic
reasons, perhaps to obtain a judge more to their liking.” In re Allied-Signal Inc., 891 F.
2d 967, 970 (1st Cir. 1989)(Breyer, J.)(citations omitted). Simply put, the motion is
premised exclusively upon Petitioner’s conjecture that I am biased and is not based
upon any facts suggesting extra-judicial conduct.
In the absence of any concrete, definite or particular facts that Petitioner can
point to in support of his request for recusal, Petitioner’s conjecture and subjective
conclusions are legally insufficient to support recusal and fall well short of
demonstrating that any reasonable individual could entertain significant doubt about the
impartiality of the undersigned.
Accordingly, for these reasons, Petitioner’s Motion For Disqualification of
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones (Doc. 8) is due to be DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Gainesville, Florida, on March 18, 2013.

s/ Gary R. Jones s/GaryR.Jone
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

3