Faller v. Pelosi et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 39 Motion to Disclose Conflicts, Prejudice and or Bias. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/15/2020. (pts)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION JAMES S. FALLER II, * * Plaintiff, * * V. * CV 120-002 •k NANCY PATRICIA PELOSI, et al., * * Defendants. * * * * * ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff s ^^Motion Conflicts, Prejudice and or Bias." (Doc. 39.) asks the Court to identify and disclose to Disclose Although the motion certain biases and prejudices, these requests have been construed as a motion for recusal. For the reasons below. Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. I. DISCUSSION Plaintiff asks me to address six areas of concern for recusal including, ''^the nature of the complaint," his pro se status, his criminal history, the allegation that he is "a victim of the government in terms of collateral damage to [his] family," his "legal status," and the allegation that "the against [him and his family] are horrific." crimes committed (Doc. 39, at 10.) Plaintiff also argues that my prior rulings denying the disqualification of the United States Attorney's Office {Doc. 30) and disallowing Plaintiff the use of electronic filing (Doc. 22) are bases for recusal. Finally, Plaintiff asserts concerns of bias based on alleged discussions with ''several local attorneys, a judge and personal friends of both [of us]." Section 455(a)^ instructs a federal (Doc. 39, at 5.) judge to disqualify himself if "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" or "[wjhere he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)-(b)(1). 455(a) motion is The standard of review for a Section "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." Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988). Moreover, "it is well settled that the allegation of bias must show that 'the bias is personal as distinguished from judicial in nature.'" Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that casts doubt on my impartiality. The fact that Plaintiff is a pro se litigant is not sufficient for recusal. In fact, many litigants in this Court are 'Plaintiff cites Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 455, as the legal basis for disqualification. The Court will analyze Plaintiff's motion under Section 455. pro se. Additionally, the "nature of the suit" and the allegation that Plaintiff and his family have been victims of "horrific" crimes and what Plaintiff describes as "a victim of the government in terms of collateral damage" are of no import to my impartiality. Plaintiff also bases his motion for recusal on disagreement with my prior rulings in the case at issue. "[d]isqualification ^ordinarily may not be However, predicated on judge's rulings in the instant case or in related cases.'" V. Comm'r, 426 Fed. App'x 839, 843 (11th Cir. his 2011) the Deems (quoting Phillips V. Joint Leqis. Comm. on Performance & Expenditure Rev., 637 F.2d 1014, 1020 (5th Cir. 1981)). not establish bias. Id. Adverse rulings alone do Moreover, Plaintiff's criminal history with this Court does not warrant recusal. "The mere fact of having presided over previous criminal or civil trials involving the same parties does not mandate involving those parties." recusal from all future litigation Christo v. Padgett, 223.F.3d 1324, 1334 (11th Cir. 2000). Finally, undisclosed Plaintiff parties acquaintances. offers that two vague Plaintiff (Doc. 39, at 5.) statements alleges are from mutual Even if the statements are true, "a motion for disqualification . . . may not be predicated on . . . a demonstrated particular tendency judicial to rule leaning experience on the bench." or any particular attitude way, derived nor on a from Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 1363, 1369 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Phillips, 637 F.2d at 1020) . II. CONCLUSION Upon recusal. review For of the Plaintiff's foregoing motion, reasons. I find no Plaintiff's reason ^'Motion for to Disclose Conflicts, Prejudice and or Bias" (Doc. 39) is DENIED. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this of October, 2020. J. HALL/ CHIEF JUDGE united/states district court SOUTHSI^N district OF GEORGIA

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?