Bowman v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED (1) the Clerk shall file Pla's papers, dated 07/04/12, in the record; and (2) Pla's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the Court's 06/26/12 Judgment w/respect to the denial of her motion for undersigned's recusal 4 6 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 07/10/2012.(DAK)cc: COR,Pro Se Pla (via US Mail) Modified filed date on 7/11/2012 (DAK).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
JANET BOWMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN
COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Case No.
12-cv-196-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

***
The undersigned has received a five page document, dated
July

4,

referenced

2012,

from

matter.

Plaintiff
While

she

with

respect

discusses

at

to

the

length

above-

what

she

perceives to be the undersigned’s deficiencies as a judge and a
human being, the Court understands her papers to be, in part, a
motion to alter, amend, or vacate the Court’s June 26, 2012,
Judgment

with

respect

to

denial

undersigned’s recusal [DE 4, 6].

of

her

motion

for

the

For the reasons which follow,

her motion will be denied.
In her original motion seeking recusal of the undersigned
and assignment of this case to United States District Judge Karl
S. Forester, Plaintiff identified only one rationale for her
motion for the undersigned’s recusal:
M. Hood goes to my church.”

“[b]ecause Judge Joseph

The undersigned still does not know

whether Plaintiff’s statement is true or not.

As explained

before, even if her statement is true, it would not require my
recusal

for

she

“impartiality
455(a).

has

might

suggested

reasonably

no

be

facts

upon

questioned.”

which

28

my

U.S.C.

§

To the extent that Plaintiff now asks this Court to

reconsider

that

identified

no

appropriate.

decision,
grounds

it
upon

declines

to

which

do

such

so

for

relief

she

has

would

be

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Leisure Caviar, LLC v.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir.
2005)) (“A court can grant a motion to amend judgment only if
there

is

‘(1)

a

clear

error

of

law;

(2)

newly

discovered

evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a
need to prevent manifest injustice.’”).

Accordingly and to the

extent that Plaintiff’s latest pleading constitutes a motion to
alter or amend the Court’s June 26, 2012, Judgment with respect
to the decision to deny her motion for the undersigned’s recusal
[DE 4, 6], it is denied.
Plaintiff’s

latest

papers,

however,

approach than her earlier pleadings.

take

a

different

She makes a series of

scurrilous and disparaging remarks about the undersigned which
appear to be engendered by her disagreement with the Court’s
decisions

in

this

case.

First

and

foremost,

the

Court

has

considered whether her accusations and epithets would require

the undersigned’s recusal with respect to her present request
for relief.

They do not because it is well established that:

‘[T]he mere fact that a defendant has made
derogatory
remarks
about
a
judge
is
insufficient
to
convince
a
sane
and
reasonable mind that the attacked judge is
biased or prejudiced....’” [United States
v.] Bray, 546 F.2d [851,] 858 [10th Cir.
1976]. The same is true regarding an
objective person, knowing all the facts,
assessing whether the judge's impartiality
may reasonably be questioned. Any other
conclusion would allow defendants to cause
the recusal of judges simply by making
scurrilous
and
disparaging
remarks
or
charges about them. Permitting parties to
manipulate the system with falsehoods or
insults in such a manner would be a bizarre
application of § 455(a)…
United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 994 n. 5 (10th Cir. 1993).
Second, to the extent that Plaintiff believes that this
Court has denied her relief to which she is entitled, she can
appeal this Court’s decisions – which are final – to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

By contrast, an

ad hominem attack on the undersigned does nothing to assist
Plaintiff in achieving relief for the wrongs that she believes
she has suffered.
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that any such insulting and
disrespectful comments directed at the court in the future may
result in proceedings to determine whether she should be held in
contempt of the court.
herself accordingly.

Plaintiff should take note and govern

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) that the Clerk shall file Plaintiff’s papers, dated
July 4, 2012, in the record of this matter; and
(2)

that Plaintiff’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate the

Court’s June 26, 2012, Judgment with respect to the denial of
her motion for the undersigned’s recusal [DE 4, 6] is DENIED.
This the 10th day of July, 2012.