Wallace v. United States of America

Filing 6

ORDER denying 3 Motion for Recusal.. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 4/4/17. (clc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTEDIVISION NO. 3:17CV117-FDW-DCK DON BRADLEY WALLACE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER PLAINTIFF DON BRADLEY WALLACE moves the Court to recuse from the abovecaptioned matter because the Court formerly served in the United States Army Reserve and “could carry an unfair bias towards the intelligence community.” (Doc. No. 3, Page 1). A judge must recuse when his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). This Court handles hundreds of cases each year where the United States government (or a component thereof such as the Department of the Army) is a party. If the Court were to recuse in the above case, the Court would have to recuse in all matters where the United States government is a party. Furthermore, Plaintiff has made no showing of any bias or prejudice by this Court, despite a ten year history of this Court presiding over trials where the United States is a party. Robinson v. N. Carolina Employment Sec. Comm’n, No. 3:09-CR-00088 at *1, 2009 WL 3150324 (recusal not required upon spurious or loosely based charges of partiality). Finally, the Court has no extrajudicial knowledge of this matter or of PLAINTIFF WALLACE; thus the Court is not required to recuse. Shaw v. Martin, 733 F.2d 304, 308(4th Cir. 1984). THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’s motion to recuse (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED. Signed: April 4, 2017

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?