Jones v. Hill et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying without prejudice 28 , 31 and 42 Motions to Recuse. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on 1/27/15. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 1:14-cv-00305-MOC-DCK
JUANITA L. JONES,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
J. CALVIN HILL
JULIE M. KEPPLE
PATRICIA K. YOUNG
CITY OF ASHEVILLE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MARTIN REIDINGER
ROY COOPER
RON MOORE
EDWIN D. CLONTZ
JOHN DOE 5
CHARLES E. BARNARD
ANNIE M. BARNARD
SAMUEL A. CATHEY
BUNCOMBE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
PETER R. HENRY
ALAN B. STYLES
GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JOHN DOE 2
JOHN DOE 3
JOHN DOE 4,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff’s pro se Motion to Recuse (#28),
amended Motion to Recuse (#31), and second Motion to Recuse (#42). Such motions contain a
number of contentions, including some inflammatory and spurious contentions.

-1-

Among the non-inflammatory contentions, plaintiff contends that a family member of the
undersigned is the Clerk of Court for the 28th Judicial District. That is correct; however, it is not
a basis for recusal at this point. Despite suing “Buncombe County District Court” in her
Amended Complaint, close review of that document does not reveal that such family member is
a named defendant in this action or that plaintiff has made any plausible allegation against the
Clerk of Court either in his personal or professional capacities. In relevant part, plaintiff alleges
in the introduction to her claim, as follows:
Buncombe County District Court has been the court house that has harbored and
allowed Public Corruption to exist between corrupt lawyers and Judges with
Monies being Exchanged for such crimes and Disregard for laws and rules of law.
There has been thousands of innocent convicted by the outrageous Crimes of both
the judges and Lawyers in this courthouse. In America you have the right to
represent yourself and can Win with evidence. District Court 28 has Denied Truth
and is liable for their Crimes under 18 USC 241 242 Conspiracy to commit fraud
and deprivation of rights under color of Law
Amended Complaint (#15) at 11 (errors in the original). Plaintiff then states in the body of her
Amended Complaint, as follows:
Buncombe County District 28 in where most of the corruption occurs with the
changing of documents, judges ignoring laws and a violation of justice. The law
states you have a right to represent yourself and that the Law still remains the
same, voters rejected this style of prosecution by voting Defendant Ron Moore
out of Office after 24 years of torture to innocent citizens like the Plaintiff who
works hard and obeys Laws and do not use illegal Drugs. I have documents with 3
different dates. Apparently the counterclaim was filed before the lawsuit? This is
unacceptable behavior by any one bound by laws in America Lawyers
Prosecutors Judges City or county Officials or an Attorney General.
Id. at 17 (errors in the original). Nowhere in the Amended Complaint does plaintiff name or
even mention the Clerk of Court for the 28th Judicial District or his employees. While a
contention that documents were misdated could possibly be one directed to the Clerk of Court or
his employees, such a conclusion at this point would be merely speculation as the pleadings are
-2-

unclear as to whether plaintiff’s allegation concerning misdated documents goes to court filings,
like pleadings, that are file-stamped by the Clerk of Court or a deed to real property which is
recorded by the Register of Deeds, which is a separate office. As the undersigned’s family
member is not named and it is not clear that plaintiff’s claim is based on any action of that family
member’s office, there is no basis for recusal at this time. The court does, however, reserve the
right to revisit this issue if it becomes apparent that a family member has some interest in this
litigation.
***
Plaintiff has also made a number of spurious assertions in her pleadings. Plaintiff is
cautioned that regardless of who the judge is that ultimately decides her case, she should avoid
making inflammatory allegations in her pleadings. The thrust of her Amended Complaint is that
she believes she was deprived of real property without Due Process of law by those acting under
color of state law. Such a claim is brought under the Civil Right Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
et seq., and typically involves allegations that (1) state actors, (2) acting under color of state of
law, (3) took property (4) without Due Process, in violation of protections afforded the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. The critical information that is necessary for such a claim to survive,
to wit, “allegations of plausible facts,” must focus on those elements.

Attacking judges,

prosecutors, and other public servants personally adds nothing to the quantum of plausible facts.
In a single page (Motion to Recuse (#28) at 1), plaintiff has accused a federal judge of being
“corrupt” and “one or more” of the named defendants, most of whom are public servants, of
murder and attempted murder. Such remarks do nothing to advance plaintiff’s Section 1983
action, but instead show a disrespect for the individuals she has sued and the judicial process

-3-

itself. Plaintiff is advised that this court treats all persons as equals, regardless of the reason they
are before the court; in return, the court expects all persons appearing before the court to treat
others with respect.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse (#28), amended
Motion to Recuse (#31), and second Motion to Recuse (#42) are DENIED without prejudice.

Signed: January 27, 2015

-4-