Stewart v. Warnisher et al
Filing
25
OPINION and ORDER entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Pro se Plaintiff Yvonkia Stewart's Motion to Substitute the Judge for Cause 24 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 19 January, 2017 03:29:56 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
YVONKIA STEWART,
Plaintiff,
-vsCHANCE WARNISHER and
AMY L. MADDOX,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 15-cv-3057
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS:
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Yvonkia Stewart’s (Plaintiff) Motion to
Substitute the Judge for Cause (d/e 24). For the reasons stated below, the
Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Background
The Plaintiff has filed a Complaint alleging that Springfield Police Officers
Chance Warnisher and Amy L. Maddox have violated the Plaintiff’s civil rights.
The Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 21) which is
currently pending before the Court. Plaintiff has been granted an extension of
time in which to respond to the Defendants’ summary judgment motion.
Page 1 of 5
The Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Substitute the Judge for Cause
(d/e 24) claiming that the undersigned, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom
Schanzle-Haskins, was “one of the presiding judges” over Plaintiff’s Social
Security case filed in Federal Court under docket number 3:14-cv-03265SEM-TSH (Social Security case). The Plaintiff alleges that the Social Security
case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals as Case No.
16-2284, and the Plaintiff, due to a conflict of interest, does not feel she will be
free from prejudice in this case as the nature of her injuries in this case are
directly related to Plaintiff’s physical and functional limitations which were
presumably addressed in her Social Security case.
Analysis
Plaintiff seeks substitution of the Magistrate Judge in this case based on
three legal grounds. First, Plaintiff indicates that she is entitled to substitution of
judge under 735 ILCS 5/2-1001. The law cited is a statute regarding
substitution of Judges in the Courts of the State of Illinois. This statute is not
applicable to proceedings in Federal Court.
Plaintiff also asserts that she is entitled to substitution of judge under 28
U.S.C. §455, which deals with the disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate
judge in federal proceedings. The pertinent portion of that statute for purposes
Page 2 of 5
of this motion is subsection (a), which provides:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.
In the Plaintiff’s Social Security case, Case No. 3:14-cv-03265, the undersigned
was the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case and U.S. District Judge Sue E.
Myerscough was the District Judge assigned to the case. A review of the
docket in that case indicates that the undersigned Magistrate Judge took the
following actions in the Plaintiff’s Social Security case:
A)
Allowed Plaintiff’s petition to proceed pro se without prepayment of
fees and allowed Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (Text
Order, 9/17/2014, d/e 7, Case #14-3265);
B)
Allowed defendant in the case an extension of time to file its answer
(Text Order, 2/12/2015, Case #14-3265);
C)
Allowed pro bono counsel’s motion to withdraw (Text Order,
2/12/2015, Case #14-3265);
D)
Directed Plaintiff to file her motion for summary judgment by April 20,
2015 (Text Order, 3/20/2015, Case #14-3265);
E)
Entered Order advising the parties of their ability to consent to the
Magistrate Judge to be presiding Judge in the case (d/e 21, Case #14-3265)
Page 3 of 5
(Note: no signed consent form was received by the Clerk from either party); and,
F)
Allowed the defendant in the case extensions of time to respond to
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Text Orders, 7/20/2015, 8/18/2015,
Case #14-3264).
The motions for summary judgment in Plaintiff’s Social Security case
were ruled upon by U.S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough in a written Opinion
(d/e 30, Case #14-3265). An appeal was then taken by the Plaintiff.
Based upon the above recitation of the activity of the undersigned in
Plaintiff’s Social Security case, it is clear that no ruling was made by the
undersigned Magistrate Judge on the merits of the Plaintiff’s challenge of her
denial of Social Security benefits or on the nature and extent of any injuries or
physical conditions of the Plaintiff which might be of issue in this case. The
merits of Plaintiff’s Social Security case were addressed solely by Judge
Myerscough. Consequently, there is no reasonable basis to question the
impartiality of the undersigned Magistrate Judge due to his participation in the
Social Security case as his only actions had to deal with extensions of time and
appointment and withdrawal of pro bono counsel.
Plaintiff also cites Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 100 S.Ct. 1610
(1980) in support of her motion. The holding of the Supreme Court in Jerrico
Page 4 of 5
has no application in this case. In Jerrico, the issue was whether the possibility
that an assistant regional administrator of the Department of Labor who
assessed fines would have his judgment distorted by the prospect of institutional
gains when the fines were returned to the Department of Labor which employed
him. The Court determined that this factual pattern did not violate the due
process clause of the United States Constitution.
None of the legal propositions asserted by the Plaintiff in this case provide
any basis for an order requiring a different judge be substituted in this case.
Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pro se Plaintiff Yvonkia Stewart’s
Motion to Substitute the Judge for Cause (d/e 24) is DENIED.
ENTERED: January 19, 2016
__s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins_______
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 5 of 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?