Smith v. Harrington et al

Filing 81

ORDER. Plaintiff's most recent motion to disqualify (Doc. 80 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff is warned that further redundant motions may necessitate the Court to exercise its inherent power to ensure that frivolous, vexatious, and repeated filings do not interfere with the orderly administration of justice by diverting scarce judicial resources. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/14/2014. (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 DENYING SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
REAGAN, District Judge:
In July 2014, the undersigned adopted a Report and Recommendation from
the magistrate judge, thereby denying pro se Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief.
(Plaintiff had sought a transfer away from Menard Correctional Center, or to
protective custody). Plaintiff’s motion was denied because he had not given prison
officials a chance to review specific threats against him (in the wake of a basketball
court beating) or requested protective custody since being assaulted, thereby
lessening his likelihood to succeed on the merits of his deliberate indifference claim

and subverting the notion that he needed a preliminary injunction to avoid
irreparable harm. (See Doc. 73).

1

On July 31, Plaintiff filed a motion “to remove” the undersigned district
judge.

That motion, which was based on Plaintiff’s disappointment about the

outcome of his motions for preliminary injunction, was denied the next day. (Doc.
79). Now Plaintiff has renewed his request that the Court disqualify itself.
Plaintiff’s motion offers no reason to consider disqualification. Plaintiff posits
that the Court is simply ignoring the fact he was beaten and has enemies inside the
prison.

That is not the case: as clearly stated in the order denying Plaintiff

injunctive relief, he is not entitled to the dramatic remedy of a preliminary
injunction because he is unlikely to succeed at substantiating his federal deliberate

indifference claim, not at substantiating whether he was beaten or has known
enemies. This Court’s application of the facts to controlling legal standard is part of
the overwhelming majority of judicial rulings that “are proper grounds for appeal,
not for recusal.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 80) is DENIED, and Plaintiff is warned: further
redundant motions 1 may necessitate the Court to exercise its inherent power to
ensure that “[f]rivolous, vexatious, and repeated filings by pro se litigants [do not]
interfere with the orderly administration of justice by diverting scarce judicial
resources…” U.S. ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor Cnty., 73 F.3d 699,
671 (7th Cir. 1995).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 12, 2014

1

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

The Court has also denied three motions concerning Plaintiff’s court fees.

2