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)

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