Knecht v. Kasich

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER denying 14 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 2/23/12. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER KNECHT,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:12-cv-124
Judge Graham
Magistrate Judge King

JOHN KASICH,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This action against the Governor of the State of Ohio was originally
filed by plaintiff, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel,
in the Western Division of this Court.

The matter was thereafter

transferred to this division pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 82.1,

Order,

Doc. No. 2,1 and randomly assigned to a District Judge and to the
undersigned in accordance with Eastern Division Order 91-3(I)(A).

The

undersigned thereafter granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, Doc. No. 1, and granted defendant forty-five (45) days
after service of process to respond to the Complaint.
3.

Order, Doc. No.

This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to recuse

the undersigned.

Plaintiff’s Objection to Automatic Appearance of

Magistrate Judge Norah King; Objection to Assignment of Magistrate Juge;
Objection to Magistrate Judge Norah King’s Order Granting Leave to
Proceed

in

Forma

Pauperis;

Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

Recusal/Disqualificaiton of Magistrate Judge Norah King, Doc. No. 14

1

Plaintiff has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the
transfer of the action to this division. Doc. No. 8.

[“Motion to Recuse”].2
Plaintiff bases his request for the recusal of the undersigned on
decisions made and/or the recommendation issued in a previous case filed
by plaintiff,

Knecht v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 2:97-cv-736 (S.D.

Ohio). Judgment entered in that case by the District Judge,3 Doc. No. 44,
was affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal, Knecht v. Ohio Adult
Parole Authority, 215 F.3d 1326, 2000 WL 659030 (6th Cir. May 10,
2000)(unpublished).
Federal law requires a federal judge to “disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28
U.S.C. §455(a).

The bias or prejudice that mandates recusal, however,

must be wrongful or inappropriate, i.e., either relying on knowledge
acquired

outside

the

proceedings

or

displaying

deep-seated

and

unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible.
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).

In this regard, judicial

rulings alone almost never constitute a basis for recusal.
States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966).

Id.; United

In basing his motion

on actions taken in prior litigation, plaintiff has not articulated a
valid basis for the recusal of the undersigned.
Plaintiff also complains that “he will spend a good portion of his
time regularly submitting objections to various proceedings carried out
by” the undersigned, “which doesn’t promote the judicial efficiency of
the Court much less the time the parties would spend on subjective

2

An identical filing appears at Doc. No. 13. To the extent that
plaintiff’s filings seek reconsideration of the assignment of the case to the
undersigned and reconsideration of the order issued by the undersigned, the
motions will be left for consideration by the District Judge.
3

Plaintiff erroneously asserts that the earlier case was assigned to the
same District Judge to which this case has been assigned.

2

issues.” Motion to Recuse, p. 7. However, plaintiff’s speculation about
the future course of these proceedings is simply not a basis for recusal
of a judge.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse, Doc. No. 14, is DENIED.

s/ Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
February 23, 2012

3