Moreland v. Wood et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Change Venue; denying 11 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/10/14. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED
FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

DAVID L.

MORELAND,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*

v.

*

CV 214-143

*

CHIEF

JUDGE

LISA GODBEY

WOOD,

*

et al.,

*
it-

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions to Transfer
Venue and for "Recusal,
the . . . Eleventh

6, 11.)

Removal,

Circuit

Disqualification or Impeachment of

United

States

For the reasons set forth below,
I.

District

Judges."

these motions are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The history of these and related proceedings

convoluted.1

Thus,

the

(Docs.

Court

addresses

only

is lengthy and

the

factual

and

procedural background relevant to the current motion.
On September 17,
current

action

Division,

Judge
Judges,

in

alleging

James
and

E.

2014,

the

Plaintiff David L.

Georgia,

Brunswick

that Chief Judge Lisa Godbey Wood,

Magistrate

Graham,

others

violations against him.

Southern

the

District

Eleventh

committed

a

of

Moreland filed the

Circuit

multitude

(Doc. 1, "Compl.")

Court
of

of

Appeals

constitutional

Plaintiff claims that

1
Additionally, Plaintiff's motions and complaint are handwritten and at
times illegible.
With that in mind, the Court has made every effort to
accurately quote and articulate Plaintiff's arguments.

these parties conspired against him2 in a previous civil law suit by
ruling

inadmissible

remarks,

and

proceed

in

certain

refusing

forma

to

evidence,

appoint

pauperis.

making

counsel

derogatory

and

Additionally,

to

allow

Plaintiff

racial
him

claims

to

that

Chief Judge Wood and Magistrate Judge Graham "had the U.S.

Court of

Appeals

to

the

[]

case

help

conceal

out."

Plaintiff

the

(Compl.

asserts

civil Racketeer

truth by

1

claims

49.)

of

getting

As

legal

best

the

the

clerks

Court

malpractice,

can

discern,

violation

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

throw

of

the

("RICO"),

and conspiracy.

Following

the

filing

of

Plaintiff's

complaint,

Wood transferred the case to this Court.3

(Doc. 7.)

Chief

Judge

Now before the

Court are Plaintiff's motions for a transfer of venue4 and recusal
of

the

Honorable

(Docs.

6,

J.

11.)

Randal

Hall

Plaintiff

and

the

asserts

Honorable

that

Judge

Brian K.

Epps

and

Epps.

I

"are

disqualified to hear this case matter" because our position in the
Eleventh

Circuit

question

[the]

(Doc.

11 at

creates

a

fairness,

4.)

I

conflict

of

impartiality,

address

interest,

bias,

and

putting

"in

prejudic[e]."

these motions on behalf of myself and

Judge Epps.

2

Plaintiff

actually

contends

conspired amongst each other,

that

Chief

Judge

Wood

and

Judge

Graham

with the defense attorneys in the underlying

lawsuit, and with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

3
Plaintiff appears to assert that Chief Judge Wood's October 2, 2014
Order transferring the case to this Court is void.
Plaintiff's basis for
this claim is that Chief Judge Wood did not comply with the Constitution and
thus

her

orders

are

void.

This

argument

presented and lacks any basis in law.
have

transferred

the

case

to

remove

is

Indeed,
any

non-sensical

given

the

facts

Chief Judge Wood appears to

conflict,

which

is

precisely what

P l a i n t i f f seeks.

4
The Motion to Transfer Venue asserts the same justification as the
Motion
for
Recusal:
conflict
of interest.
As
such,
the Court
will

simultaneously
Motion

for

address

both

motions

from

Recusal.

2

this

point

forward

as

a

single

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that we recuse ourselves from this case and
transfer

it

to

motion appears

the

District

of

named

Circuit.

Plaintiff's

to be based on the fact that Judge Epps

judges of the Eleventh Circuit,
are

Columbia

defendants

in

this

and I are

and fellow Eleventh Circuit judges

matter.

Plaintiff

asserts

that

these

circumstances require recusal.

Plaintiff
Recusal:

28

cites

U.S.C.

two

statutes

§ 144

and

in

support

of

Section

144

455.

his

Motion

provides

for
that

"[w]henever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and

files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom

the

matter

is

pending

against him or

has

a

personal

bias

or

in favor of any adverse party,

prejudice

such

either

judge

shall

proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to
hear such proceeding."
Plaintiff

includes
described

filed

his

28 U.S.C. § 144.
motion

within

in his filing an affidavit;
below,

Plaintiff

has

not

The Court recognizes that

weeks

of

however,
presented

the

complaint

and

and for the reasons
sufficient

evidence

that Judge Epps or I have a personal bias or prejudice against him.
Section 455(a)

instructs a federal judge to disqualify himself

if "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
455(a).
5

The

standard of review for a Section

Plaintiff's

affidavit

states,

455(a)

28 U.S.C. §
motion

is

among other things, that "the Court is

racist bias prejudice against Plaintiff on December 6th 2010," that Plaintiff
filed with the clerk the present motion to disqualify the judges of the
Eleventh Circuit, and that "the Court is still continuing to function
improperly in violating (sic) citizen constitutional rights."
(Doc. 11, Ex.
1.)

3

"whether
of

the

an

objective,

facts

would

underlying

entertain

impartiality."
(11th Cir.
U.S.

v.

a

1988) .

circumstances

Specifically,

grounds

v.

Connors

lay
on

observer

which

doubt
Steel

fully

recusal

about

Co.,

informed

was

the

855

F.2d

sought
judge's

1510,

1524

Any doubts must be resolved in favor of recusal.

888

455(b)

the

significant

Parker

Kelly,

Section

disinterested,

F.2d 732,

includes

(11th Cir.

per

a

requiring

744

se

recusal.

Section 455(b)(1)

rule

1989).

that

Parker,

In addition,

lists

855

particular

F.2d

at

1527.

requires a judge to recuse himself

"[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,

personal

knowledge

proceeding[.]"

of

28

U.S.C.

stricter than Section

may involve actual

disputed

§ 455(b)(1).

455(a)

bias

evidentiary

and is

facts

Thus,

concerning

the

Section 455(b)

concerned with situations

or

is

that

rather than Section 455 (a)'s concern with

public perception of the judicial process.

Upon review of Plaintiff's motions
Plaintiff has

not

(Docs.

6,

11),

satisfied the standard under Section

I find that
144

or 455.

First, any professional relationship with the named judges does not
create

the

our mere

position

Plaintiff's
Florida,

appearance

as

of

Eleventh

request would
and

impropriety requiring

Alabama

Circuit

recusal,

judges.

Indeed,

render every federal
disqualified

to

nor

does

to

heed

judge in Georgia,
hear

the

case.

"[D]isqualification of an entire district

is not justified except

under

which

6

highly

exceptional

circumstances,

are

not

present

The Court also notes that if a professional relationship between judges

or membership to a common group is sufficient to require recusal in this
matter, it would be possible that no judge could properly hear this case.
4

here."

U.S.

v.

Cork,

2007

(quoting Clemens v. U.S.
F.3d 1175,

542

F.2d

1180

56

are disqualified[.]"
Moreover,

circuit
fails

Dist.

(9th Cir.

(8th Cir.

WL

2570761,

Ct.

2005));

1976)

at

for the Cent.

point

Epps or me.

(N.D.
Dist.

Ga.

("[W]here

all

are

2007)

of Ca.,

see also Pilla v. Am.

428

Bar Ass'n,

disqualified,

none

(internal quotation marks omitted)).

despite blanket assertions that this entire judicial

is biased and cannot hear the case

to

*4

to

any particular

Indeed,

impartially,

Plaintiff

facts evidencing bias

from Judge

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a

strikingly similar issue and reached the same conclusion in Switzer
v.

Berry,

198

F.3d

1255

(10th

Cir.

2000).

There,

the

plaintiff

brought a civil RICO action and named as defendants all active and
senior

judges

several

district

Colorado.

"must

of

not

Id.

be

the

Tenth

court

at

judges,

1257.

The

clerks,
court

and

held

Appeals,

the

that

the

Attorney

recusal

for

statute

Id. at

1258;

see also Tapia Ortiz v. Winter,

becomes,

as

unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice."

is

it

well

merest

recusal

that

U.S.

as

the

that

construed

of

effect,

so

broadly

Court

in

presumptive,

so

Circuit

mandated

upon

185 F.3d 8, 10

(2d Cir.

1999)

(denying a motion for recusal even where the entire panel was named
as

defendants

disinterested
here,

where

and

panel

holding

in

appellant

"[t]hat

another
has

it

circuit

is

possible

does

not

to

convene

require

indiscriminately named all

a

transfer

then-current

Second Circuit judges as defendants, even those who had no role in
deciding either of his appeals").

Here, neither Judge Epps nor I

had any role in the events giving rise to the complaint, nor do we

have any personal

knowledge

those

the

asserted

in

under both Sections

144

of the underlying

complaint.

venue and recusal

Plaintiff's

aside

motion

from
fails

and 455.
III.

Based upon the

Thus,

issues

forgoing,

(Docs.

6,

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motions

11)

for transfer of

are DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this f@ day of October,
2014.

H01){ORABjpE^J. RANDAL HALL
UNITED STATES

DISTRICT

JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

For the reasons set forth above,

myself

from

Plaintiff's

this

matter

motions

for

and

concur

transfer

of

I likewise decline to recuse

in

the

venue

and

this

/Q

Court's
recusal

Denial

of

(Docs.

6,

11) .

SO ORDERED AT Augusta,

Georgia,

day of October,

2014.

HONORABLE BRIAN K.

EPPS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA