Fenelon v. Brennan
Filing
65
MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER: Considering the foregoing, the 55 Motion to Recuse or Disqualify the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Western and Eastern Districts of Louisiana, filed by the plaintiff, Cheryl Fenelon, has no merit and is, therefore, DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 12/30/2020. (crt,Chicola, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
CHERYL L. FENELON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-0245
VERSUS
JUDGE SUMMERHAYS
MEGAN BRENNAN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST
MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER
Before the undersigned is the Motion to Recuse or Disqualify the U.S.
Attorney’s Offices for the Western and Eastern Districts of Louisiana, filed by the
plaintiff, Cheryl Fenelon [Doc. 55]. The motion is opposed by defendant Megan
Brennan in her capacity as the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service
[Doc. 60]. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
In her motion, the plaintiff seeks to disqualify the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for
the Western and Eastern Districts of Louisiana from defending this Title VII action.
As an initial matter, the undersigned notes that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
Eastern District of Louisiana is not involved in this case and never has been, nor has
it ever been involved in the plaintiff’s underlying EEO administrative process.
There is, therefore, no basis upon which to disqualify the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, as it does not have, nor has it ever had, a presence
in the instant lawsuit.
1
The grounds for the motion to disqualify appear to be that the plaintiff and/or
her mother filed at least four cases in U.S. District Court – or filed cases in state
court which were removed to the district courts – and the plaintiff’s cases were
dismissed. In at least three of the lawsuits, plaintiff or her mother named the United
States and federal judges (U.S District Judge A. J. McNamara, U.S. District Judge
Lance Africk and Middle District of Louisiana Bankruptcy Judge Douglas Dodd) as
defendants, in addition to naming private law firms and attorneys and numerous state
and local officials as defendants. The cases that were filed in the Eastern District
involved plaintiff’s claims of wrongful foreclosure on property formerly owned by
her and/or her mother. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of
Louisiana represented the United States and the federal judges in the Eastern District
cases. All of the cases were dismissed, and the plaintiff and her mother alleged
judicial bias and unfairness, as the plaintiff does in the instant matter. None of the
foregoing cases are related to this Title VII action, and therefore, there are no
grounds to disqualify the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana from
defending the instant lawsuit.
The plaintiff’s motion also seeks to recuse Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree
Williams on grounds that she was formerly associated with the private law firm
Allen and Gooch. The plaintiff alleges certain conspiracy theories involving the
2
New Orleans Saints professional football team, the Roman Catholic Church, and the
Lafayette Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette – all of which are represented by
Allen and Gooch – in an attempt to have AUSA Williams recused from the case.
While AUSA Williams did, in fact, work for Allen and Gooch in Lafayette, AUSA
Williams has been employed in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in excess of five years,
and since that time, she has only represented the United States, federal agencies, and
federal employees. AUSA Williams has never represented the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Lafayette in formal litigation, and she has had no involvement in any of
the litigation filed by the plaintiff and/or her mother in any court.
Considering the foregoing, the Motion to Recuse or Disqualify the U.S.
Attorney’s Offices for the Western and Eastern Districts of Louisiana, filed by the
plaintiff, Cheryl Fenelon [Doc. 55], has no merit and is, therefore, DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 30th day of December, 2020.
3
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?