Littlejohn v. Ozmint et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 46 Motion to Change Venue; denying 17 Motion to Change Venue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 7/26/2011.(mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tron Manuel Littlejohn,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Jon Ozmint; Dennis Patterson; Jimmy
)
Sligh, Jr., Cecilia R. Reynolds; Emilie
)
Locklear; Helen McCray; Daniel Debios; )
Craig Sumner; Annie Mae Sellers;
)
Jerome Armstrong; Pamela Hough; Jerry )
Washington; LuAnne Mungo, Darren
)
)
Seward; Jeanne McKay; Ulyesses
)
Buxton, Anthony Dowling; and
)
Bernadette Jefferson,
)
)
Defendants.
)

C/A No.: 1:10-2332-TLW-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at Allendale
Correctional Institution. Before the court are Plaintiff’s Motions to Change Venue [Entry
#17, #46]. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).
Although Plaintiff’s motions are entitled and docketed as requests for change of
venue from the Florence Division, the motions are not related to venue, as the true
division for trial in this matter is the Rock Hill Division. Plaintiff’s motions actually
request disqualification of the judges in this matter, as he claims that the Honorable Terry

L. Wooten and the undersigned1 have conflicts of interest in this case. Plaintiff’s first
motion provides no factual allegations for the alleged conflicts of interest. [Entry #17].
However, Plaintiff’s second motion states: “[T]he current presiding Honorable Shiva V.
Hodges has a possible ‘conflict of interest’ regarding prior disposition of [a] similar civil
action.” [Entry #46]. He further alleges he will also suffer bias or prejudice if Judge
Wooten presides over his case due to his work on Plaintiff’s other similar cases.2 Id. at
1–2. Plaintiff notes that the conflict of interest will be resolved if his petition is granted.
Id.
The Fourth Circuit has recognized that “there is as much obligation upon a judge
not to recuse himself when there is no occasion as there is for him to do so when there is.”
Nakell v. Attorney Gen. of N.C., 15 F.3d 319, 325 (4th Cir. 1994) (citations and
quotations omitted); see also Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3A(2) (“A judge should
hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified . . . .”). 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

1

Both Judge Wooten and the undersigned are stationed in the Florence Division of
the District of South Carolina, which appears to be where Plaintiff’s confusion as to the
venue lies. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that the Honorable Thomas E. Rogers III, who
is stationed in the Florence Division, but who is not assigned to this case, also has a
conflict of interest.
2

Plaintiff provides no detail regarding his similar cases, such as a case number or
any specific allegation of bias.
2

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 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, Plaintiff claims “a conflict of interest” based solely upon the handling of
Plaintiff’s “similar civil actions.” Plaintiff has pointed to nothing in the record or
elsewhere that raises even the appearance of impartiality, much less actual bias or
prejudice. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s only justification for requesting reassignment of
judges is involvement in Plaintiff’s other cases. Plaintiff’s disagreement with a prior
recommendation or ruling of the undersigned or Judge Wooten is not a valid basis for
recusal. See Liteky 510 U.S. at 555. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions must be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 26, 2011
Florence, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3