Banks v. Cain et al

Filing 55

RULING denying 54 Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Under 28 USC Section 144 and 455 a(b)(1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 3/6/2014. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MATT BANKS (#116002)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

N. BURL CAIN, ET AL

NUMBER 13-144-JJB-SCR
RULING ON MOTION TO RECUSE

Before the court is the plaintiff’s Affidavit Motion to Recuse
Magistrate Judge Riedlinger Under 28 U.S.C. Section 144 and 455
a(b)(1) [sic].

Record document number 55.1

Plaintiff seeks recusal of the undersigned due to a conflict
of

interest,

prejudice,

bias

and

“deep-seated

favoritism

antagonism” (which is just another way of alleging bias).

or

All of

the actions the plaintiff complained about relate to rulings made
in the case, or about actions the plaintiff wanted the court to
take against the defendants.
Recusal for alleged bias or prejudice is not required because
the bias or prejudice alleged “must stem from an extrajudicial
source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other
than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.”
United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583, 86 S.Ct. 1698,

1

Pursuant to the February 13, 2014, Ruling on Motion for
Leave to Amend Complaint and Order Striking Attachments, record
document number 53, the clerk of court received the plaintiff’s
motion but did not immediately file. It was reviewed and the clerk
of court was directed to file it.

1710, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966).

Every ruling or order - except three

- about which the plaintiff complained was a procedural ruling and
which was clearly derived from the motion or matter before the
court.

None of these rulings were appealed to the district judge.

The non-procedural rulings were all denials of the plaintiff’s
motions for appointment of counsel, none of which were appealed to
the district judge.
Other than complaints about the rulings, the plaintiff has
alleged no facts to support his conflict of interest allegation, or
facts

which

show

that

the

undersigned’s

impartiality

might

reasonably be questioned.
Accordingly, Affidavit Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge
Riedlinger Under 28 U.S.C. Section 144 and 455 a(b)(1) [sic] is
denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 6, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE