Stewart v. USA

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER denying 6 Motion for Recusal ; denying 7 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/8/15. cc: Stewart (mc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
vs.
JOVAN DEMONT STEWART,
Defendant/Petitioner.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 2:09-cr-43
2:13-CV-454

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the: (1) “Motion for
Recusal of United States District Court Judge Rudy Lozano,” filed
by the Petitioner, Jovan Demont Stewart, on April 7, 2015 (DE
#618); and (2) “Petition for Intervention of the Chief United
States District Judge Phillip [sic.] P. Simon for Recusal and
Reconsideration Purposes Under Extraordinary Circumstances,” filed
by Petitioner, Jovan Demont Stewart, on April 7, 2015 (DE #619).
For the reasons set forth below, both motions (DE ##618, 619) are
DENIED.
This Court has already denied Stewart’s motion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (DE #601), declined to issue a certificate of appealability,
and denied his motion for reconsideration (DE #610).

Even if this

Court still has jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. section 144 provides that
whenever a party files a “timely and sufficient affidavit” that the

judge of the party’s case has a “personal bias or prejudice,” the
case shall be assigned to a different judge.

28 U.S.C. § 144.

The

bias must be personal rather than judicial, and “[t]he facts
averred must be sufficiently definite and particular to convince a
reasonable person that bias exists; simple conclusions, opinions,
or rumors are insufficient.”

United States v. Sykes, 7 F.3d 1331,

1339 (7th Cir. 1993). The affidavit must show a personal bias “and
that it stems from an extrajudicial source- some source other than
what the judge has learned through the participation in the case.”
United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1199 (7th Cir. 1985)
(citation

omitted).

“[J]udicial

rulings

alone

almost

never

constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality recusal motion.”
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 541 (1994).
Stewart has not met the statutory requirements.
Stewart did not file an affidavit.

First,

Second, Stewart has not shown

that any alleged personal bias stems from an extrajudicial source.
This Court’s rulings in this case do not, by themselves, constitute
a reason to recuse or a reason for another judge to intervene.
Therefore,

the

Motion

to

Recuse

(DE

#618)

and

Motion

for

Intervention (DE #619) are DENIED.

DATED:

April 8, 2015

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

2

3