HILL v. BARNACLE et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 56 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 8/18/2016. (spc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONNA M. HILL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JAMES BARNACLE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-1604

ORDER
On August 17, 2016, the Plaintiff, Donna Hill, filed a motion for recusal (ECF No. 56).
She argues that the undersigned should recuse from this case for having “abused his discretion
and inappropriately resolved genuine issues of material fact, in favor of the defendants, in all of
his reports and recommendations, as evident by the Third Circuit Court’s reversal and remand in
both cases.” (Id. at 1.) In a declaration attached to the motion, Plaintiff asserts that the
undersigned: “resolved genuine issues of material fact in favor of the defendants;” “acted as an
investigator for the defense … and antagonized the plaintiff with multiple recommendations for
dismissal.” (Id. at 4.)
Specifically, she refers to the following sequence of events: Plaintiff filed this action in
conjunction with a request to proceed in forma pauperis; the undersigned recommended that this
case be dismissed upon an initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii); the
recommendation was adopted by the district judge and the case was dismissed; Plaintiff appealed
the dismissal of her action and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated and remanded;
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the undersigned recommended that the motion be
granted; the recommendation was adopted by the district judge and the case was dismissed; and
Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals again vacated and remanded the case to this Court.

The United States Code provides that:
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.
28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The Supreme Court has held that “judicial rulings alone almost never
constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,
555 (1994). “When a party does not cite to extrajudicial sources, the Judge’s opinions and
remarks must reveal a ‘deep-seated’ or ‘high degree’ of ‘favoritism or antagonism that would
make fair judgment impossible.’” United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 213 (3d Cir. 2007)
(quoting Liteky, 519 U.S. at 555-56). See Knoll v. City of Allentown, 707 F.3d 406, 411 (3d Cir.
2013) (district judge who called Knoll’s case “silly” and characterized her motion for a new trial
as “patently frivolous” was not required to recuse himself).
Plaintiff does not cite to extrajudicial sources, nor does she point to instances of opinions
revealing a deep-seated or high-degree of favoritism or antagonism. Plaintiff’s motion is based
solely on the fact that two Reports and Recommendations recommending the dismissal of this
action (which were both reviewed de novo and adopted by a district judge) were ultimately
reversed on appeal by the Court of Appeals. But “adverse rulings—even if they are erroneous—
are not in themselves proof of prejudice or bias.” Arrowpoint Capital Corp. v. Arrowpoint Asset
Mgmt., LLC, 793 F.3d 313, 330 (3d Cir. 2015). On the contrary: “It has long been regarded as
normal and proper for a judge to sit in the same case upon its remand, and to sit in successive
trials involving the same defendant.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 551. Therefore, her motion for recusal
will be denied.

2

Since this case was remanded from the Court of Appeals, several notices have been sent
to Plaintiff at her address of record in Washington County. It appears that she no longer lives at
this address and a review of the Third Circuit’s docket reveals that notices were sent to her at a
different address in the City of Pittsburgh. Out of an abundance of caution, notices have been
sent to her at both addresses. However, she has not officially apprised this Court of her new
address.
AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2016,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (ECF No. 56) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if appropriate, Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Change
of Address, addressed to: Clerk’s Office, United States District for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, Suite 3110, United States Courthouse, 7th Avenue and Grant Street, Pittsburgh,
PA 15219.

s/Robert C. Mitchell
ROBERT C. MITCHELL
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:

Donna Hill
348 Country Club Road
Apt. 2
Washington, PA 15301
Donna Hill
1110 Steuben Street
Apt. 213
Pittsburgh, PA 15220

3