Courtright v. United States of America

Filing 19

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Recusal and granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion for Copies. See order for specifics.Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 1/23/2013. (mtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CARL A. COURTRIGHT, III,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

Case No. 12-cv-1078-DRH
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:

I.

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court are petitioner’s motions to request the Honorable
Chief Judge Herndon under federal rules recuse himself from hearing this case
(Doc. 17) and to provide a copy of the docket sheet and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rules
(Doc. 18). For the following reasons, petitioner’s motion requesting the
undersigned’s recusal is DENIED (Doc. 17). Petitioner’s motion for copies is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part (Doc. 18).
II.

LAW AND APPLICATION

Petitioner’s motion for recusal cites various statements from petitioner’s
criminal sentencing hearing, see Courtright v. United States, 07-cr-30179-DRH,
Doc. 130, and argues such statements demonstrate the undersigned’s personal
bias and hatred of petitioner. On this basis, petitioner feels the undersigned

Page 1 of 4

cannot undertake a fair and unbiased review of petitioner’s instant 28 U.S.C. §
2255 petition.
First, the Court notes that while petitioner takes issue with the assignment
of his Section 2255 petition, it is well-settled that the normal and appropriate
procedure is to assign a Section 2255 motion to the sentencing judge. By statute,
the motion is to be made before, “the court which imposed the sentence.” 28
U.S.C. § 2255(a). Although the term “court” as opposed to “judge” is used, it is
generally accepted that Congress intended district judges to review proceedings
over which they presided. See Eaton v. United States, 458 F.2d 704, 708 (7th
Cir. 1972). This preference favors the same judge who presided over the criminal
proceedings, as he “may bring to bear his personal knowledge of the prior
proceedings, which is an advantage rather than a mark of inherent prejudice.” Id.
While petitioner disagrees, the Court sees no reason to waver from the statutory
preference.
Additionally, as petitioner relies on statements of the undersigned made at
petitioner’s sentencing, it appears petitioner confuses sentencing rationale with
personal bias. The Court does not have personal bias against petitioner. The
statements to which petitioner refers represent dispassionate comments designed
to explain the reasons behind the Court’s sentence. At sentencing, the Court is
required to make an individualized assessment of the appropriate sentence based
on the applicable sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49–
50 (2007); United States v. Booker, 612 F.3d 596, 601 (7th Cir. 2010).

Page 2 of 4

“Ultimately, the court ‘must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for
meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.’”
United States v. Borozck, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 197709, *5 (7th Cir. Jan. 18,
2013) (citing Gall, 552 U .S. at 50). Thus, as the Court was merely explaining the
reasons for the sentence imposed, as it must, and was not displaying personal
bias or hatred, petitioner’s motion to recuse is DENIED (Doc. 17).
Finally, petitioner requests a copy of the docket sheet in this case and a
copy of the civil rules governing Section 2255 petitions (Doc. 18). Petitioner’s
request is GRANTED in part, as the Clerk is instructed to send petitioner a copy
of the docket sheet in this matter. Further, the Clerk is also instructed to send
petitioner a copy of the Local Rules of this district. Petitioner should take
particular note of the rules regarding motion practice. See SDIL-LR 7.1. However,
to the extent petitioner seeks a copy of the FEDERAL RULES

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE,

petitioner’s request is DENIED. Petitioner will have to obtain the civil rules from
the library. The Court reminds petitioner the prosecution of his case is solely his
responsibility. The Court shall not provide him step-by-step instructions
concerning how best to litigate his claims.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, petitioner motion to recuse (Doc. 17) is
DENIED. Petitioner’s motion for copies (Doc. 18) is GRANTED in part, as the
Clerk is instructed to send petitioner a copy of the docket sheet in this matter, as

Page 3 of 4

well as the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 23rd day of January, 2013.

Page 4 of 4

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.01.23
16:30:52 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Judge