Cruz v Fulton, et al

Filing 36

ORDER AND REASONS - For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned hereby recuses herself from this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court reallot this matter to another Section of this Court. Case transferred to Judge Martin L.C. Feldman for all further proceedings. Judge Susie Morgan no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/13/2016.(bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ELADIO CRUZ,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-2015

TRACY FULTON, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION: “E” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. For the reasons that follow, the
Court hereby recuses itself from this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. The Clerk of
Court is instructed to reallot this matter to another Section of this Court.
BACKGROUND
On September 3, 2014, Plaintiff Eladio Cruz filed this action against Defendants
Tracy Fulton, Paul Dimitri, and the New Orleans Police Department. 1 Plaintiff alleges,
inter alia, a number of federal civil rights violations against Fulton and Dimitri—officers
with the New Orleans Police Department—as well as against the New Orleans Police
Department itself. 2 The case was then allotted to the undersigned judge, who now recuses
herself from this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 for the reasons set forth below.
LEGAL STANDARD
Title 28, section 455, requires the disqualification of a judge in any proceeding in
which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, as well as when he or she
has a personal bias or prejudice against a party. 3 Section 455(a) states, in pertinent part,
that a judge should recuse himself or herself “in any proceeding in which his [or her]

See R. Doc. 1 at 1.
R. Doc. 1 at 4–7.
3 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455.
1

2

1

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 4 “In order to determine whether a court’s
impartiality is reasonably in question, the objective inquiry is whether a well-informed,
thoughtful and objective observer would question the court’s impartiality.” 5 Moreover,
“the purpose of § 455(a), and the principle of recusal itself, is not just to prevent actual
partiality, but to avoid the appearance of partiality.” 6
DISCUSSION
The undersigned oversees the implementation of the Consent Decree between the
United States of America and the City of New Orleans for the reform of the New Orleans
Police Department (the “Consent Decree”). 7 Recognizing that section 455(a) claims must
be analyzed in light of the particular facts at hand, the Court finds the impartiality of the
undersigned could reasonably be questioned by a well-informed, thoughtful, and
objective observer in a case against the City of New Orleans alleging misconduct of its
police department. The Consent Decree covers a broad array of issues including
recruitment and training, performance evaluations and promotions, misconduct and
discipline. It calls for new departmental policies governing the use of force, searches and
seizures, arrests, interrogation, lineups and more. The Court holds regular status
conferences and hearings with officials of the City of New Orleans and the New Orleans
Police Department to discuss matters governed by the Consent Decree, including the type
of wrongdoing alleged in this case.

28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
Trust Co. v. N.N.P., 104 F.3d 1478, 1491 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 155–
58 (5th Cir. 1995)).
6 Republic of Panama v. American Tobacco Co. Inc., 217 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Jordan,
49 F.3d at 155).
7 United States v. New Orleans City, No. 12-1924 (E.D. La.).
4
5

2

The undersigned is responsible for ensuring that the New Orleans Police
Department achieves the reforms set forth in the Consent Decree, a task that mandates
knowledge of and familiarity with the New Orleans Police Department and its operations.
Although the Court has no bias or prejudice in favor of or against the New Orleans Police
Department, the present matter involves allegations of misconduct against the police
department. In light of the undersigned's role as overseer of the Consent Decree, recusal
is appropriate under Section 455(a) to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned hereby recuses herself from this
matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of
Court reallot this matter to another Section of this Court.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of January, 2016.
_______________________ ________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1/14/16

2/15/05

3