Jones v. Supreme Court et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 24 MOTION for Recusal filed by Hersy Jones, Jr. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 08/19/2016. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
HERSY JONES, JR.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2766

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT,
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY
BOARD, ROBERT KENNEDY, AND
CHARLES PLATTSMIER

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a “Motion for Recusal” (Record Document 24) filed by Plaintiff
Hersy Jones, Jr. (“Jones”). Jones is seeking the recusal of this Court “because he cannot
be impartial” and “due to his past affiliation with the Louisiana Supreme Court as a Bar
Examiner, his current membership with the Louisiana Law Institute on which a member of
the Louisiana Supreme Court also sits.” Id. For the reasons which follow, the Motion for
Recusal is DENIED.
Background
Jones filed a complaint against the Louisiana Supreme Court, the Louisiana
Disciplinary Board (“LADB”), attorney board member Robert Kennedy, and Charles
Plattsmier, Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the LADB. The complaint alleges that the
Louisiana Supreme Court issued an order disbarring Jones on or about March 30, 2007.
See id. at ¶ 2. It was determined that Jones had violated Rules of Professional Conduct
1.4, 1.5 and 1.16. See id. at ¶ 11. Jones argues that his disbarment eight years ago
violates his First Amendment right to association and freedom of speech, and constitutes
a taking of his property without due process. Further, Jones alleges that his disbarment
was based in whole or in part on the nature of his law practice, “namely representing
African American families whose sons had been killed by white police officers.” Id. at ¶ 64.

Law and Analysis
It is well established that “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.” 28 U.S.C. §455(a). In addition, “he shall also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances: Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(1).
It is noted that “each §455(a) case is extremely fact intensive and fact bound, and must be
judged on its unique facts and circumstances more than by comparison to situations
considered in prior jurisprudence.” Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board, 992 F.Supp.
848 (W.D. LA. 1997), citing U.S. v. Jordan, 49 F. 3d 152, 156 (5th Cir. 1995). A “judge
abuses his discretion in denying recusal where a reasonable man, cognizant of the relevant
circumstances surrounding [the] judge’s failure to recuse, would harbor legitimate doubts
about that judge’s impartiality.” Garcia v. City of Laredo, Tex., 702 F. 3d 788, 794 (5th Cir.
2012),citing Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir.2003) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Jones argues that based on the undersigned’s involvement with the Committee on
Bar Admissions as a Bar Examiner, and the fact that he sat for two years as the designated
Western District of Louisiana representative on the Louisiana State Law Institute with a
member of the Louisiana Supreme Court, he is therefore biased. The Committee on Bar
Admissions and the LADB are different entities. The LADB is solely concerned with the
disciplinary process for Louisiana attorneys. The Committee on Bar Admissions is primarily
tasked with administering the Louisiana Bar Examination and reviewing applications of
those seeking admission. With regards to service as an ex officio member of the Louisiana
Page 2 of 3

State Law Institute (La. R.S. 24:204(A), et seq.), while the undersigned is still a member
of one of the many committees that make up the Law Institute, there is no Louisiana
Supreme Court Justice sitting on that committee at this time. Jones implies a connection
between this Court and the Defendants in this case, when in fact no connection exists.
Based on the nature of the claims asserted by Jones, there is no evidence that the
undersigned has any bias towards Jones.
The Fifth Circuit held in Harris v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University,
et al., 409 Fed Appx. 725 (5th Cir. 2010), that the District Judge’s affiliation with the Board
of Trustees of LSU Law Center was not enough to require recusal when one of the parties
was another component of the LSU system, the LSU Health Science Center in Shreveport.
Like Jones, Harris provided no information with respect to the affiliation beyond identifying
the affiliation. In this instance, Jones merely states that the undersigned is affiliated with
the Committee on Bar Admissions and the Louisiana State Law Institute, neither of which
are named parties in this suit.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Motion for Recusal (Record Document 24) is
DENIED. Jones has presented nothing to demonstrate that the undersigned has personal
bias, prejudice, and/or a lack of impartiality.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana this 19th day of August, 2016.

Page 3 of 3