Smith v. Harrington et al

Filing 79

Plaintiff's Motion to "Remove" (properly understood as a motion to disqualify) the District Judge (Doc. 76 ) is DENIED. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/1/2014. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JIMMIE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICK HARRINGTON,
BETSY SPILLER,
COWAN,
S.A. GODINEZ, and
TERRI ANDERSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13–cv–0900–MJR–SCW

ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
This § 1983 civil rights claim is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Jimmie Smith’s motion
“to remove” the undersigned from his case. Smith cites 28 U.S.C. § 144, which requires:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a sufficient
affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or
prejudice against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no
further therein … The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that
bias or prejudice exists.
A court may only credit facts that are sufficiently definite and particular to convince a reasonable
person that bias exists; simple conclusions, opinions, or rumors are insufficient. Hoffman v.

Caterpillar, Inc. , 368 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2004). The statute’s requirements are strictly
construed to prevent abuse. Id. A motion like the instant one is generally considered a motion to
disqualify—actual bias must be shown by allegations that include definite times, places, persons, and
circumstances. Id.
Rather than include facts that show actual bias against him, Plaintiff simply posits that the
undersigned’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction (in which he sought protective
1

custody status and/or a transfer) warrants disqualification from the case. It is well established that
judicial rulings alone “almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Marozsan

v. U.S. , 90 F.3d 1284, 1290 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 554–
56 (1994)).
recusal.”

“Almost invariably,” judicial rulings “are the proper grounds for appeal, not for

Liteky , 510 U.S. at 555.

Plaintiff has brought forth no facts, other than his

disappointment at the undersigned ruling, to show actual bias. His motion (Doc. 76) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 1, 2014

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

2