Daker v. Dozier et al
Filing
21
ORDER denying 18 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/12/2018. (pts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOXJTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
WASEEM DAKER,
Plaintiff,
*
*
V.
*
CV 617-110
*
COMMISSIONER GREGORY DOZIER,
et al.,
*
*
*
Defendants.
*
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's pro se Motion to Recuse.
(Doc.
18.)
undersigned
recuse
Therein,
and
United
themselves
Plaintiff
States
''from
requests
Magistrate
this
case
involving" Plaintiff.^
recusal
the
Baker
is
required
pursuant
history
of
Magistrate
to
orders
Baker
of
28
U.S.C.
shows
of
a
455(a)
pattern
treating
any
R.
both
Stan
further
the
Baker
cases
Plaintiff asserts that
undersigned
§
Judge
and
(Id. at 1.)
that
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. Allen, et al., Case No. 6:17-cv-79 (S.D. Ga. dismissed Dec. 6, 2017) (the
"Allen II Case").
(See Allen I Case, Doc. 95; Allen II Case, Doc. 52.)
Short histories of the factual background and proceedings of the Allen I Case
and Allen II Case are available in the Orders entered in those respective
matters.
(See, e.g., Allen I Case, Docs. 10, 15, 52, 93, 94; Allen II Case,
Docs. 17, 21, 22, 30, 42.)
it
can
to
(Id. at 4.)
rubberstamp-dismiss
any and every case he files.
A short history of this case's factual background
and proceedings is available in the Court's Order dated January
14, 2018 and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
entered herein.
(See Docs. 4, 14.)
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. 18, 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
such
that,
taken
pervasiveness
together,
that
an
demonstrate a pattern
outside
observer
of
could
judicial conduct of
fairly
district
court's
impartiality."
(internal
quotations,
alterations omitted)); id. at 9 ("[W]hatever Plaintiff
question
citations,
requests,
the
and
then
Magistrate Baker and Judge Hall do the opposite out of spite."); id. at 17
("In Judge Hall's biased and prejudiced eyes. Plaintiff can do no right, and
Judge Hall will find a pretext to dismiss anyways."); id. at 22 ("Magistrate
Baker and Judge Hall have acted as
quotations and citations omitted)).)
a
surrogate
prosecutor."
(internal
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 circumstances 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 administration — even a stern and short-tempered judge's
ordinary efforts at courtroom administration — remain immune." (internal
citations and alterations omitted)).
"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 niomerous misstatements and
over-simplifications of the relevant cases' proceedings and the
Court's
Orders
importantly,
and
reasoning
in
relation
thereto.
More
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. 18, 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,
judgment
doubt
Plaintiff's
judicial
demonstrate
fair
precedent,
See Liteky v. United
pervasive
(ii)
rendering
legal
bias
or
deep-seated
or
impossible;
or
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.
18)
is
DENIED.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia this
day of March,
2018.
J. RANDMa^HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITEDySTATES DISTRICT COURT
:RN 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?