Peterson v. Corby
Filing
102
ORDER denying 98 MOTION TO STAY THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR RECUSAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (DAll)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TORAN PETERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 23-10090
Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
CORBY,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PETERSON’S MOTION TO STAY THE ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND FOR RECUSAL
(ECF NO. 98)
Plaintiff Toran Peterson, a prisoner proceeding pro se, sues Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) officer Corby under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that he used excessive force. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Mark A.
Goldsmith referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 8.
Corby moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 59. After Peterson
failed to respond to the motion, the Court ordered him to show cause by
October 9, 2024, and later extended the deadline until November 8, 2024.
ECF No. 85; ECF No. 90. From March to December 2024, the Court has
dealt with Peterson’s discovery motions. ECF No. 52; ECF No. 60; ECF
No. 67; ECF No. 76; ECF No. 79; ECF No. 92; ECF No. 96; ECF No. 97.
The Court ultimately denied Peterson’s motion for reconsideration, for more
discovery, and to extend the deadline to respond to the motion for
summary judgment, as he did not show that the information was necessary
to defend against the motion. ECF No. 97. The Court ordered Peterson to
show cause by December 18, 2024, and warned that it would not extend
the response deadline any longer. Id. Peterson has objected to the rulings
on the discovery motions. ECF Nos. 65, 66, 83, 93.
Peterson now moves to stay the order to show cause pending Judge
Goldsmith’s resolution of his objections to discovery orders. ECF No. 98.
He also seeks the undersigned’s recusal. Id. The Court denies both
requests.
The party seeking a stay pending an appeal must establish that a
stay is warranted. Grutter v. Bollinger, 247 F.3d 631, 632 (6th Cir. 2001).
The Court must balance four factors when deciding a motion to stay:
1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on
the merits of the appeal; 2) the likelihood that the moving party
will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; 3) the prospect that
others will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and 4) the
public interest in granting the stay.
Id. “The strength of the likelihood of success on the merits that needs to be
demonstrated is inversely proportional to the amount of irreparable harm
2
that will be suffered if a stay does not issue.” Baker v. Adams Cnty./Ohio
Valley Sch. Bd., 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir. 2002). Even so, “in order to
justify a stay of the district court’s ruling, the [moving party] must
demonstrate at least serious questions going to the merits and irreparable
harm that decidedly outweighs the harm that will be inflicted on others if a
stay is granted.” Id.
Peterson has failed to justify a stay of the order to show cause. First,
Peterson does not show a likelihood of success on the merits of his
objections because he cannot show that the orders are “clearly erroneous
or contrary to law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). And Peterson cannot show
that he will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. The fact that a party
must comply with a magistrate judge’s order without a stay is not enough to
show irreparable harm. City of Holland v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 1:13-CV-1097,
2014 WL 2557124, at *2 (W.D. Mich. June 6, 2014) (denying a stay when
the only harm alleged was that plaintiff would be required to produce
documents under a magistrate judge’s order). Since Peterson has shown
neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor that he will suffer
irreparable harm absent a stay, his motion to stay the show cause order is
denied.
3
The Court also rejects Peterson’s argument that it should recuse
itself. Without detailed explanation, Peterson says that the undersigned
“has shown that she has a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that
would make fair judgment impossible through every major ruling.” ECF No.
98, PageID.673 (cleaned up).
A judge is presumed to be impartial. Scott v. Metro Health Corp., 234
F. App’x 341, 352 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, the movant has the burden to
justify disqualification. Burley v. Gagacki, 834 F.3d 606, 616 (6th Cir.
2016). Recusal is an objective standard and is not based on the subjective
viewpoint of the party. Wheeler v. Southland Corp., 875 F.2d 1246, 1251
(6th Cir. 1989). Disqualification is required “[w]here [a Judge] 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). A judge is not disqualified when the alleged bias emanates from
the proceeding themselves. Wheeler, 875 F.2d at 1252. Thus, the “critical
test is whether the alleged bias ‘stem[s] from an extrajudicial source and
result[s] in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the
judge learned from his participation in the case.’” Id. (quoting United States
v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1965)).
4
A party alleging bias or prejudice must file a timely and sufficient
affidavit stating the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or
prejudice exists. See 28 U.S.C. § 144; Easley v. University of Michigan Bd.
of Regents, 853 F.2d 1351, 1357 (6th Cir. 1988). Peterson has not filed an
affidavit in conformity with Section 144 and he does not identify any
extrajudicial source, any association outside of the proceedings, or any
basis other than what the undersigned has learned from the case that
justifies recusal. For this reason, the Court denies Peterson’s motion for
recusal.
IT IS ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2025
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on January 29, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
6
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?