White v. USA

Filing 110

ORDER DENYING 108 Motion to Disclose Any and All Ex Parte Communications Between Itself, Its Staff, and the United States and to Recuse for Apparent or Real Bias. White is hereby WARNED to refrain from making abusive, gratuitous, and/or threatening comments directed at anyone in his filings. If he files any more documents in this District containing language that is abusive toward the court, counsel, parties, or anyone else, such filings will be STRICKEN and returned to him without any further action by this Court. Moreover, he shall face sanctions that include, but are not limited to, a monetary fine and/or a filing restriction for further abusive or frivolous filings. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/9/2021. (jsy)

Case 3:17-cv-00683-JPG Document 110 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #907

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM A. WHITE, 13888-084,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-00683-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff William White’s Motion to Disclose Any
and All Ex Parte Communications Between Itself, Its Staff, and the United States and to Recuse
for Apparent or Real Bias. (Doc. 108). White filed the Motion after the Court entered an Order
Granting Defendant’s Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status and Dismiss Case.
(Doc. 102). For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Two situations compel a federal judge to recuse himself. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. First, a
judge must disqualify himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “The standard in any case for a [Section] 455(a) recusal is
whether the judge’s impartiality could be questioned by a reasonable, well-informed observer.”
In re Hatcher, 150 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 1998). Put differently, Section 455(a) “asks whether a
reasonable person perceives a significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other
than the merits.” Hook v. McDade, 89 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 1996). Absent exceptional
circumstances, however, a judge’s adverse ruling in a case provides grounds for an appeal and not
disqualification. Id. at 355.
1

Case 3:17-cv-00683-JPG Document 110 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #908

Second, under Section 455(b)(1), a judge must recuse himself if “he has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party.” Id. In order to trigger disqualification under this provision, the
party must put forth “compelling evidence” of the bias or prejudice, and it must be grounded in
“some personal animus or malice that the judge harbors . . . of a kind that a fair-minded person
could not entirely set aside when judging certain persons or causes.” Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc.
v. John Labatt, Ltd., 299 F.3d 635, 640 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
White’s motion does not satisfy any of these requirements. He points to no actual or
apparent prejudice on the part of the undersigned. He identifies no actual or apparent bias, such
as personal malice or animus. See 28 U.S.C. § 144 (setting forth procedure for recusing judge
based on personal bias or prejudice by filing an affidavit stating the “facts and reasons for the
belief that bias or prejudice exists”). He instead objects to the Government’s decision to file a
motion seeking revocation of his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status and dismissal of the case, but
that decision was the Government’s to make. White also objects to the Court’s decision to grant
the motion and require him to pay the remaining $50.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 108, ¶¶ 1,
3-4, 7-8, 16). However, that decision was the Court’s to make based on the applicable law and the
evidence and arguments presented. (See Doc. 102). An unfavorable decision, standing alone, falls
short of the compelling evidence and/or exceptional circumstances required for disqualification.1
White also attempts to draw a connection between the Government’s decision to file the
motion, an increase in disciplinary and other retaliatory action taken against him in prison, and the
Court’s decision to grant the motion. (Doc. 108). He points to a $50.00 deposit of unknown origin

1

If White wishes to challenge the unfavorable decision, he has several avenues to relief. He may file a
motion seeking the district court’s reconsideration of the decision pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 54, 59, or 60. He may also file an appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He has
already pursued one of these avenues to relief by filing a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 103). This
Court will take up the motion in a separate order.

2

Case 3:17-cv-00683-JPG Document 110 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #909

into his trust fund account just one week before the Court’s decision to grant Defendant’s Motion
to Revoke Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Status and Dismiss Case and require him to remit
payment of the same amount. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8, 16). White states that “someone that I don’t know
deposit[ed] that money eight days before this Court order[ed] me to pay the same amount,” so
“there would have had to have been ex parte communication between the Court and the United
States as to the imminence of an order directing me to pay $50.” (Id. at ¶ 16). Not so. What White
describes could have been--and actually was--a coincidence. Given all of this, the Motion (Doc.
108) shall be denied.
The Court would be remiss if it did not address White’s increasing use of abusive language
in the instant motion. In Document 108, White targets counsel, the Court, and the federal court
system, as follows:
“. . . My intent in not providing corroborating information was to cause the United
States to believe that I could not provide such evidence. This, I expected, would
cause someone like Ms. Garrison to appear in front of a fool of a federal judge,
someone who would copy whatever she had to say as a ‘factual finding’ without
any proof, and, once such an order was entered finding that no such confession
occurred, I would produce corroborating evidence and again expose the federal
justice system for the stupid, corrupt, and, arrogant, joke that it is.”
(Id. at ¶ 2). This is not the first time White has made use of insults and abusive language in
documents filed in this District. Twice last month, the Court warned him to refrain from verbal
attacks on counsel, the parties, the court, and anyone else in his filings.2 He will receive a third
warning here.

2

The Court previously entered a warning in White v. Dept. of Justice, et al., No. 16-cv-948-JPG (S.D. Ill.),
as follows: “In the future, in this and any other case, the Court will summarily strike any of White’s filings
that contain such inappropriate ad hominem attacks and may not allow him to amend the filing.” (Doc. 192
at n. 1) (“first warning”). On the same date, in White v. United States, No. 18-cv-1682-JPG (S.D. Ill.), the
Court also warned White to “refrain from filing any more pleadings containing language that is abusive
toward the court, other parties, or others, and . . . WARNED [him] that such filings will be STRICKEN
and returned to him without any further action by this Court. Moreover, he shall face sanctions that include,

3

Case 3:17-cv-00683-JPG Document 110 Filed 03/09/21 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #910

DISPOSITION
The Motion to Disclose Any and All Ex Parte Communications Between Itself, Its Staff,
and the United States and to Recuse for Apparent or Real Bias (Doc. 108) is DENIED. See Fowler
v. Butts, 829 F.3d 788, 793 (7th Cir. 2016) (a district court’s decision regarding recusal under
Section 455(b) can be vindicated on appeal).
WARNING
Moreover, White is hereby WARNED for the third time to refrain from making abusive,
gratuitous, and/or threatening comments directed at anyone in his filings. White stands WARNED
that if he files any more documents in this District containing language that is abusive toward the
court, counsel, parties, or anyone else, such filings will be STRICKEN and returned to him
without any further action by this Court. Moreover, he shall face sanctions that include, but are
not limited to, a monetary fine and/or a filing restriction for further abusive or frivolous filings.
DATED: 3/9/2021
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge

but are not limited to, a monetary fine and/or a filing restriction for further abusive or frivolous filings.”
(See Doc. 41) (emphasis in original) (“second warning”).

4