JOHNSON v. KUGLER et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WILLIAM H. YOHN, JR ON 4/30/12. 5/1/12 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY JOHNSON

:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ROBERT B.
KUGLER, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 12-2031

MEMORANDUM
YOHN, J.

APRIL

, 2012

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson brought this pro se civil rights
action against federal District Judge Robert B. Kugler, Lee Karl,
Daren B. Waite, the City of Philadelphia, and the “Third Circuit
Court Eastern Dist.”

In addition to his complaint and his motion

to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff filed a “Motion
Challenging United States District Judge William H. Yohn,
Jurisdiction.”1

For the following reasons, that motion is denied.

As discussed in more detail in this Court’s Memorandum
dismissing the complaint, plaintiff asserts due process and
conspiracy claims based on Judge Kugler’s adverse rulings in two
civil actions that plaintiff filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Civ. A. Nos. 07-3110 & 10-2800.

Plaintiff appears

to be seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Accordingly, the Court has

jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1

The motion is dated October 4, 2007, and was prepared for
another civil action filed by plaintiff, Civ. A. No. 07-3110.
However, as plaintiff appears to have submitted it in connection
with this action, the Court will address the motion.
1

1343.
To the extent that plaintiff’s motion can be construed as a
motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, it is denied.
The motion suggests that the Court lacks jurisdiction based on
the way that the Court handled prior lawsuits that plaintiff
filed in this District, and because the Court is a “coconspirator” with the named defendants.
proper bases for recusal.

Neither of those are

See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.

540, 555 (1994)(“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute
a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”); United States v.
Matorano, 866 F.2d 62, 68 (3d Cir. 1989) (“Motions to recuse
under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) must rest on the kind of objective facts
that a reasonable person would use to evaluate whether an
appearance of impropriety had been created, not on
‘possibilities’ and unsubstantiated allegations.”).
appropriate order denying the motion follows.

2

An