DOE et al v. United States
ORDER denying 15 plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CASE NO. 16-CV-13038
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
MICHAEL ERICKSEN et al.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO DISQUALIFY THIS JUDGE (Doc. 15)
This Federal Tort Claims Act action brought by plaintiffs Michael
Ericksen and John Doe is the second lawsuit filed by Doe arising out of the
same events. In the prior Bivens action against defendants Customs and
Border Protection officers, Doe alleged violations of his Fourth Amendment
rights arising out of his arrest after marijuana and drug paraphernalia were
found in the trunk of his vehicle at the Unites States and Canadian border
at the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, Michigan. Based on the border
search exception and the doctrine of qualified immunity, the court granted
defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
which the court also denied. Plaintiff appealed and the Sixth Circuit
affirmed. D.E. v. Doe, 834 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2016).
In the motion now before the court, plaintiffs seek to disqualify the
undersigned on the sole basis that the court’s dismissal order and order
denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in the prior case suggest that
the court is biased against them. Plaintiffs contend that the court’s prior
rulings were legally deficient. But the Sixth Circuit affirmed the court’s prior
rulings. Because plaintiffs have failed to show any bias that would require
the undersigned to be disqualified, plaintiffs’ motion for disqualification
(Doc. 15) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
January 10, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
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?