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)

Download PDF
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?