West v. Olens et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/29/2016. (maa)

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

STATESBORO DIVISION

MARQUIS B.

*

WEST,

*

Plaintiff,

*

CV

v.

616-038

*

SAM OLENS,

et al. ,
*

Defendants.

ORDER

Pending

before

the

Requesting Recusal.
Court

DENIES

in

(Doc.

1.)

is

Plaintiff's

is

a

state

Reidsville,

the

prisoner

Georgia.

United

recommended

se

Motion

After careful consideration,

confined

Plaintiff,

brought suit against Defendants on March 30,
2016,

pro

the

P l a i n t i f f ' s motion.

Plaintiff

Prison

Court

that

States

Magistrate

Plaintiff's

suit

be

at

Georgia

State

proceeding pro

2016.

Judge,
dismissed.

se,

On May 16,
inter

alia,

(Doc.

12.)

After conducting an independent and de novo review of the entire

record, this Court overruled Plaintiff's objections1 and adopted
the

Magistrate

opinion

on

Complaint.

Judge's

August
(Doc.

1,

Report

and

Recommendation

2016,

thereby

dismissing

as

its

own

Plaintiff's

14.)

1 Plaintiff again points out a scrivener's error in the Court's Order
misidentifying Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation as being docketed at Document 5 (as opposed to Document 13) .
(Doc.

19,

at

6.)

On
Rule

August

of

Order

Civil

dated

requested
case

25,

2016,

Procedure

August

therein

recuse

malicious

and

his

(Doc.

motion

request

18.)

that

the

the

that

On

alter

rulings

the

assigned

judges

9,

[.

this

.]

show

a

pro

Order

recuse

Plaintiff

themselves

to

.

as

also

se

the Court denied

Court's

judges

2016,

recuse

2016,

the

Court's

assigned

[Plaintiff]

amend

Federal

Plaintiff

presently

"[t]heir

to
the

amend

16.)

against

or

pursuant
or

On August 29,

September

assigned

alter

judges

because

(Id.)

moved

(Doc.

prejudice

to

to

2016.

that

inmate litigator."

as

59(e)

1,

themselves

bias

Plaintiff's

Plaintiff

as

well

themselves.

again

they

as

requested

allegedly

"display a deep seated favoritism or antagonism that would make

fair judgment impossible."2
As

set

recusal

is

forth

in

governed

(Doc. 19, at 1.)

the

by

Court's

28

U.S.C.

and

459

F.

Appfx

Cir.

As with his prior request,

instant

motion

requirements

ignoring

of

the

declaration

is

to

Section

satisfy

144.

procedural
again

Co.,

144

Land

his

Ins.

dated August

§§

Commonwealth

2012) .

Title

Order

28

as

it

Jones

808,

relevant

U.S.C.

deficiency,

insufficient

2016,

810

v.

(11th

Plaintiff has failed in

the

See

455.

29,

§

procedural

144.

Plaintiff's
does

not

Even

unsworn

sufficiently

allege judicial bias against Plaintiff,

but rather is simply a

2 Given

of

the

short

timeframe

between

the

entry

the

Court's

Order

dated

August 29,
2016 denying Plaintiff's initial request for recusal and
Plaintiff's filing of his latest motion for recusal, it appears likely to the
Court that Plaintiff had not received the former prior to Plaintiff's filing
of

the

latter.

2

recitation
the

of

Plaintiff's

assigned judges'

rulings.

"Such judicial rulings

cast

doubts

on

pervasive bias

source

to

and

See

cannot

impartiality

384

be

U.S.

Jones,

serve as

and prejudice."

Grinnell Corp.,

prejudice

previously-aired

563,

in

an

opinion

with

App!x at

811.

for recusal or

establishes

also United States v.

(1966)

("The alleged bias and

stem

on

F.

[Plaintiff]

Id. ; see

disqualifying must

result

459

the basis

unless

583

disagreements

from an

the

extrajudicial

merits

on

some

basis

other than what the judge learned from his participation in the
case.")

Similarly,

because,

again,

recusal under Section 455

Plaintiff bases his motion

is not

warranted

for recusal on his

disagreement with the judges' prior rulings in this case.
Deems

v.

C.I.R.,

426

F.

App'x.

839,

843

(11th

Cir.

See
2011)

(Disqualification "may not be predicated on the judge's rulings
in the

instant case or in related cases."

Hamm v.

647,

651

lack

of

between

Members

of

Bd.

(11th Cir. 1983)

evidence,
the

(citations

court

and

omitted)).

or evidence

raising

a

impartiality.

reasonable

adverse

counsel

Plaintiff

in

of

State

of

Fla.,

708

F.2d

("Neither a trial judge1s comments on

rulings

argument

case.

of Regents

(citations omitted));

his

as

a

party,

constitute

has

motion,

doubt

Accordingly,

to

to

pervasive

not

put

let

alone

the

nor

forth

friction
bias."

any

new

any

evidence

assigned

judges'

recusal is not warranted in this

Based
Recusal

on

(doc.

the
19)

Plaintiff's

Motion

Requesting

is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED
September,

foregoing,

at Augusta,

Georgia,

this

J2C'^ day of

2016.

VL

STATES

HALL

DISTRICT

JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA