JONES v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
Filing
45
ORDER denying 40 Plaintiff's motion for disqualification. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/10/2013. c/m (TMA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CLIFTON-JEREL: JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF INDIANA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:12-cv-01501-WTL-MJD
ENTRY
The plaintiff’s motion for disqualification has been considered.
Under 28 U.S.C. ' 455(a), a federal judge must disqualify himself Ain any proceeding in
which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.@ Matter of Hatcher, 150 F.3d 631, 637
(7th Cir. 1998). “The standard in any case for a ' 455(a) recusal is whether the judge's
impartiality could be questioned by a reasonable, well-informed observer.@ Id. In Hook v.
McDade, 89 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 1996), the court stated that ' 455(a) Aasks whether a
reasonable person perceives a significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other
than the merits. This is an objective inquiry.@
Judicial rulings, routine trial administration efforts, and ordinary admonishments are not
grounds for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). In order to justify recusal
under § 455(a), the impartiality of which a judge is accused will almost always be extrajudicial.
Id. at 554; O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975, 988 (7th Cir. 2001); In re
Huntington Commons Assocs., 21 F.3d 157, 158-59 (7th Cir. 1994). Thus, “[w]hen a motion for
recusal fails to set forth an extrajudicial source for the alleged bias and no such source is
apparent, the motion should be denied.” Sprinpangler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 759 F. Supp.
1327, 1329 (S.D.Ind. 1991) (citing Jaffree v. Wallace, 837 F.2d 1461, 1465 (11th Cir. 1988)).
The plaintiff seeks the recusal of the undersigned because he disagrees with one or more
rulings in this action and because the undersigned was formerly a judicial officer in a circuit
court of this State. The former factor has been adequately addressed in the preceding paragraph.
The plaintiff=s dissatisfaction with prior rulings by the undersigned is not evidence of bias, nor is
it otherwise a valid basis for a change of judge. The latter factor suggests to the plaintiff, but
would not suggest to a reasonable person, that it is “impossible” for the undersigned to be
impartial in light of the plaintiff’s challenge to the authority of the Circuit Courts of Indiana. As
to this second factor cited in the motion for disqualification, former service as a judicial officer
in the State of Indiana does not undercut my impartiality, which is both presumed, see United
States v. Baskes, 687 F.2d 165, 170 (7th Cir. 1981), and a reality. The court concludes that there
is no legitimate basis for the plaintiff to seek the disqualification of the undersigned. The motion
to recuse thus fails under ' 455(a)(1) because the circumstances reviewed above do not
demonstrate an objectively reasonable basis for questioning my impartiality. In addition, no
circumstances associated with this action warrant the disqualification of the undersigned judge
under any provision of ' 455(b). The plaintiff=s suggestion otherwise is both frivolous and
contrived.
An additional circumstance is properly noted. Although ' 455 does not contain an
explicit timeliness requirement, Aa claim for judicial recusal under section 455 >will not be
considered unless timely made.=A Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Co., 323 F.3d 661, 664 (8th Cir.
2003) (quoting United States v. Bauer, 19 F.3d 409, 414 8th Cir. 1994)). ATimeliness requires a
party to raise a claim >at the earliest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts
demonstrating the basis for such a claim.=@ Id. (quoting Apple v. Jewish Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 829
F.2d 326, 333 (2d Cir. 1987)). This action was filed on October 16, 2012, and has been assigned
to the docket of the undersigned since that date. The Madison Circuit Court was a named
defendant in the complaint when filed and was retained as a defendant in the amended complaint
filed on November 7, 2013. Final judgment was entered on the clerk’s docket on April 17, 2013.
A notice of appeal was filed on May 14, 2013, as was the motion for disqualification. These
circumstances show that the motion for disqualification was not timely filed and in being filed
after the entry of final judgment was likely not even filed for a legitimate purpose.
Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s motion for disqualification [Dkt 40] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
06/10/2013
Date: __________________
_______________________________
Distribution:
Clifton-Jerel: Jones
2431 Sheffield Ave.
Anderson, IN 46011
Electronically Registered Counsel
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?