Filing 55

ORDER denying 52 Motion for Recusal. Recusal by the assigned judges is not warranted. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/12/2018. (jlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION WASEEM DAKER, Plaintiff, CV 617-079 V. MARTY ALLEN, et ai., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff's pro se Motion to Recuse. (Doc. 52.) Therein, undersigned and recuse United themselves Plaintiff States ''from requests Magistrate Judge R. this case involving" Plaintiff.^ recusal the and (Id. at 1.) Baker is required pursuant history of Magistrate to orders Baker of 28 U.S.C. shows of a that 455(a) pattern treating Stan further the Baker cases Plaintiff asserts that undersigned § any both by and Magistrate because both [Plaintiff] "this Judge Judge Court's Hall disparately and and discriminatorily as compared to other cases, and saying anything ^ Notably, Plaintiff has filed identical motions for recusal in two other matters he has brought in this Court, namely: (i) Daker v. Allen, Case No. 6:17-cv-23 (S.D. Ga. filed Feb. 3, 2017) (the "Allen I Case"); and (ii) Daker V. Dozier, et al., Case No. 6:17-cv-110 (S.D. Ga. dismissed Jan. 29, 2018) (the "Dozier Case"). (See Allen I Case, Doc. 95; Dozier Case, Doc. 18.) Short histories of the factual background and proceedings of the Allen I Case and Dozier Case are available in the Orders entered in those respective matters. (See, e.g., Allen I Case, Docs. 10, 15, 52, 93, 94; Dozier Case, Docs. 4, 14.) it can to rubberstamp-dismiss any and every case he files. (Id. at 4.) A short history of this case's factual background and proceedings is available in the Court's Order dated December 6, 2017 and prior Orders entered herein. (See Doc. 42; see also Docs. 17, 21, 22, 30.) Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Jones v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 459 F. App'x 808, 810 (11th Cir. 2012). Under Section 144, a judge must recuse himself when a a party to district court proceeding ''files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party." recusal under § 144, 28 U.S.C. § 144. "To warrant the moving party must allege facts that would convince a reasonable person that bias actually exists." Christo V. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Jones, 459 F. App'x at 811 ("The facts alleged in the affidavit must show that the bias was personal, not judicial in nature." (citing United States v. Archbold-Newball, 554 F.2d ^ (See also Doc. 52, at 4 ("Magistrate Smith [sic] has displayed a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Judge Story [sic] has ruled against [Plaintiff] on numerous issues and requests for relief that, taken together, demonstrate a pattern of judicial conduct of such pervasiveness that an outside observer could fairly question district court's impartiality." (internal quotations, citations, alterations Magistrate ("In Judge Judge Hall Baker and quotations omitted)); id. at 9 ("[W]hatever Plaintiff requests, the and then Baker and Judge Hall do the opposite out of spite."); id. at 17 Hall's biased and prejudiced eyes. Plaintiff can do no right, and will find a pretext to dismiss anyways."); id. at 22 ("Magistrate Judge Hall have acted as a surrogate prosecutor." (internal and citations omitted)).) 665, 682 {5th Cir. 1977))). Section 455(a) requires recusal where ''an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain impartiality." (11th Cir. recusal. 1989). a significant doubt about the judge's Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 1988). Any doubts must be resolved in favor of United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 744 (11th Cir. Generally, judicial rulings "cannot serve as the basis for recusal or cast doubts on impartiality unless [the moving party] establishes pervasive bias and prejudice."^ App'x at 811 (citing Archbold-Newball, 554 Jones, 459 F. F.2d at 682). ^ See also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994) ("[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circiamstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required (as discussed below) when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal. Second, opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus, judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge. They may do so if they reveal an opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source; and they will do so if they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. An example of the latter (and perhaps of the former as well) is the statement that was alleged to have been made by the District Judge in Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 28 (1921), a World War I espionage case against GermanAmerican defendants: 'One must have a very judicial mind, indeed, not to be prejudiced against the German Americans' because their 'hearts are reeking with disloyalty. ' Not establishing bias or partiality, however, are expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of what imperfect men and women, even after having been confirmed as federal judges, sometimes display. A judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom ordinary administration efforts at — courtroom even a stern administration citations and alterations omitted)). and — short-tempered remain immune." judge's (internal ''Neither a trial judge's comments on lack of evidence, rulings adverse to a party, nor friction between the court and counsel constitute pervasive bias." Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents of State of Fla., 708 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse is rife with feeble conclusions of impropriety as well as numerous misstatements and over-simplifications of the relevant cases' proceedings and the Court's Orders and reasoning in relation thereto. More importantly, however. Plaintiff's allegations stem solely from his disagreements with the rulings of Magistrate Judge Baker and myself and therefrom. the unsound assumptions Plaintiff has drawn (See Doc. 52, at 6-22 (identifying seven purported instances of alleged bias/prejudice, including disparate docket management, incorrect application "flipflopping" instructions, and various (i.e., as issues acting of sua a sponte "surrogate These are reasons for appeal, not recusal. States, motion 510 fails prejudice to: against unequivocal (iii) U.S. 540, (i) raise (1994). establish Plaintiff; antagonism otherwise 555-56 an objective resolution of prosecutor")).) Moreover, Plaintiff's judicial bias or deep-seated or judgment impossible; or demonstrate fair precedent, See Liteky v. United pervasive (ii) rendering legal doubt about the assigned judges' impartiality. Accordingly, recusal by the assigned judges is not warranted. Based on the foregoing and upon due consideration, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse (doc. 52) is DENIED. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this day of March, 2018. f, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED JTATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTIJEi^J 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?