Wardell v. Joyner

Filing 11

ORDER construing Petitioner's 10 motion requesting random reassignment as a request to recuse and denying the motion as to the assigned magistrate judge in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 8/3/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Wendel Robert Wardell, Jr.,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
H. Joyner, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:18-1566-DCN-PJG

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion of the petitioner, Wendel Robert Wardell, Jr.,
requesting random reassignment of this case, which the court is construing as a request to recuse the
assigned magistrate judge in his case. (See ECF No. 10.) Finding no basis for recusal, the court
denies Wardell’s motion.
Recusal of federal judges is generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455.1 Subsection (a) of § 455
provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself
in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” In the Fourth Circuit,
this standard is analyzed objectively by considering whether a person with knowledge of the relevant
facts and circumstances might reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. United States v. Cherry,
330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003). For purposes of this statute, the hypothetical “reasonable person”
is not a judge, since judges, who are trained to regard matters impartially and are keenly aware of
that obligation, “may regard asserted conflicts to be more innocuous than an outsider would.”
United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 287 (4th Cir. 1998). The “reasonable person” is a “well-

1

Notably, § 455 largely tracks the language of Canon 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United
States Judges, which also governs recusal of federal judges.
Page 1 of 3

informed, thoughtful observer,” but not one who is “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious.” In re
Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1990).
Section 455(a) does not require recusal “simply because of unsupported, irrational or highly
tenuous speculation,” or because a judge “possesses some tangential relationship to the proceedings.”
Cherry, 330 F.3d at 665 (internal quotation omitted). The Fourth Circuit recognizes that overly
cautious recusal would improperly allow litigants to exercise a “negative veto” over the assignment
of judges simply by hinting at impropriety. DeTemple, 162 F.3d at 287. Recusal decisions under
§ 455(a) are “fact-driven and may turn on subtleties in the particular case.” United States v. Holland,
519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008).
Subsection (b) of § 455 further provides a list of specific instances where a federal judge’s
recusal is mandated, regardless of the perception of a reasonable observer. Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540, 567 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Pertinent here, § 455(b)(1) disqualifies a judge
“[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Bias or
prejudice must be proven by compelling evidence. Brokaw v. Mercer Cty., 235 F.3d 1000, 1025 (7th
Cir. 2000).

Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that to warrant

disqualification, “[t]he alleged bias or prejudice . . . must stem from an extrajudicial source . . . other
than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384
U.S. 563, 583 (1966). In applying the extrajudicial source doctrine, the Supreme Court has held that
judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
motion. In and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments or
accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial

Page 2 of 3

source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or
antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved.
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (citation omitted).
Here, Wardell simply requests that this matter be randomly reassigned to different judges.
(ECF No. 10.) Wardell mistakenly asserts that this matter was deemed related to a previous matter
he had before this court. To the extent Wardell relies on unfavorable past rulings, as stated above,
mere disagreement with judicial rulings and unsupported allegations of bias are insufficient to
warrant recusal. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion to have this matter reassigned to a different
magistrate judge is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 3, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3