Hunter v. Boron et al
Filing
57
OPINION (See Written Opinion): The Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Recusal [d/e 53 ] is DENIED. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [d/e 53 ] is DENIED. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 8/27/2015. (VM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 27 August, 2015 12:40:20 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW BORON, et al.,
Defendants.
NO. 14-3324
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge:
On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff Chase Carmen Hunter filed a
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that a number of
Defendants had violated her civil rights.
Over the course of ten months, the Plaintiff has filed several motions
alleging she is unable to pay the applicable filing fees.
In January of 2015, Plaintiff Hunter was denied leave to proceed In
Forma Pauperis. She was ordered to pay the filing fee or face dismissal of
her case. See Doc. Nos. 32 & 35. The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.
See Doc. No. 36. On February 13, 2015, the Court denied her leave to
proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal.
On April 22, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit Dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to pay the filing
fee. See Doc. No. 49. Judgment was entered on April 24, 2015. See Doc.
No. 50.
More than three months later, on July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Relief from Orders. See Doc. No. 51. The Plaintiff continues
to seek to litigate the issue of whether she has the funds to pay the filing
fee. The Plaintiff’s Motion was denied on the same date. On August 24,
2015, the Plaintiff filed another Notice of Appeal. See Doc. No. 52.
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis and a Motion for Recusal of the Undersigned.
The Plaintiff seeks the undersigned’s recusal because she has filed
articles of impeachment based on her disagreement with the Court’s rulings
on the Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and/or related
motions.
A federal judge must recuse himself from a proceeding “where he has
2
a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1).
“Any bias must be proven by compelling evidence, and the issue is whether
a reasonable person would be convinced the judge was biased.” Grove
Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 299 F.3d 635, 640 (7th Cir.
2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The bias “must be
grounded in some kind of personal animus or malice that the judge harbors
against [the party], of a kind that a fair minded person could not entirely
set aside when judging certain persons or causes.”
United States v.
Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1201 (7th Cir. 1985).
The Plaintiff claims that the undersigned is biased because the Court
has “entered grossly erroneous and false orders in the lawsuit before and
since January 2015.” See Doc. No. 53. The Plaintiff states she believes she
is not being treated fairly.
“Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis” for
recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis
for its recusal. She points only to her disagreement with prior rulings of the
3
undersigned, a magistrate judge and another district judge previously
assigned to this case. The Plaintiff does not allege bias based on a personal
relationship or prior litigation. The Plaintiff’s subjective belief that the
undersigned is biased does not constitute compelling evidence of bias.
The Court declines to recuse simply because the Plaintiff has sought
the undersigned’s impeachment due to the entry of Orders with which she
disagreed. The Plaintiff cannot be permitted to judge-shop by filing articles
of impeachment anytime she disagrees with a Court Order.
The
undersigned does not take the filings personally. The Court harbors no
animus or bias towards the Plaintiff.
The Court declines to permit the Plaintiff to proceed In Forma
Pauperis on Appeal. The Court concludes any appeal would be frivolous.
The Plaintiff has already appealed the Orders entered in January of 2015.
The Appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. The Plaintiff has
given no basis for relief from the Orders previously entered.
Ergo, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Recusal [d/e 53] is DENIED.
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [d/e 53] is
DENIED.
4
If the Plaintiff continues to file motions in the district court
pertaining to her alleged inability to pay the applicable filing fees, the Court
will consider imposing appropriate sanctions.
The Plaintiff shall pay the applicable filing fee or file a Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.
ENTER: This 27th day of August, 2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/Richard Mills
Richard Mills
United States District Judge
5
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?