Jefferson v. Fannie Mae et al
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 37 MOTION for Recusal filed by Keitha Jefferson. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Judge (Dkt. #37) is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 6/10/2015. (kls, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
KEITHA JEFFERSON
§
§
§
§
§
V.
FANNIE MAE and MELISSA TONN
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-604
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse Judge (Dkt. #37). Having
considered the motion, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.
On May 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to recuse, asserting that the undersigned cannot
be impartial and violated the following canons of judicial conduct: (1) performing the duties of
judicial office impartially and diligently; (2) public access to judicial records; (3) conducting the
judge’s extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations; (4)
avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities; and (5)
performing the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently. Plaintiff appears to complain
that the undersigned knew or should have known that he did not have the authority, jurisdiction,
or power to preside over or issue orders in Plaintiff’s case number 4:14-cv-572, and that the
undersigned should not have sealed record number 20, which is a notice of the case transfer
decision from the Northern District of Texas. Plaintiff contends that the clerk who entered this
record falsified a government record. In addition, Plaintiff complains of other court docket
entries that she claims were falsified or docket entries that were incorrectly numbered. Plaintiff
moves that the undersigned be recused from this case on these allegations.
1
LEGAL STANDARD
Section 144 of 28 U.S.C. provides:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely
and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a
personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such
judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear
such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reason for the belief that such bias or
prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of
the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for
failure to file it within such time. A party shall file only one such affidavit in any
case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is
made in good faith. [emphasis added]
28 U.S.C. § 144. Some of the grounds for recusal of a judge are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 455.
This statute says, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.
(b)
He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)
Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding;
(2)
Where in private practice he served as a lawyer in the
controversy...
(3)
Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness...
(4)
He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or
minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the
subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of
the proceeding;
(5)
He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship
to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)
is a party to the proceeding ...
(ii)
is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
2
(iii)
(iv)
is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness
in the proceeding. [emphasis added throughout]
28 U.S.C. § 455.
The Fifth Circuit has held that a legally sufficient affidavit of personal bias and prejudice
on the part of a judge must meet three requirements: it must (1) state material facts with
particularity; (2) state facts that, if true, would convince a reasonable person that bias exists; and
(3) show that the bias is personal rather than judicial in nature. Henderson v. Dep’t of Public
Safety and Corrections, 901 F.2d 1288, 1296 (5th Cir. 1990).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff did not file an affidavit in support of her request. If the Court considers the
motion, Plaintiff failed to allege any facts or circumstances that are legally sufficient to require
or warrant recusal. Mere disagreements as to rulings made are almost always insufficient to
show bias or prejudice justifying removal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.
Ct. 1147, 1157, 127 L. Ed.2d 474 (1994) (citing United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563,
583, 86 S. Ct. 1698, 1710, 16 L. Ed.2d 778 (1966)). Furthermore, affidavits that are based on
mere conclusions, opinions, or rumors rather than personal knowledge are legally insufficient to
require recusal. Henderson, 901 F.2d at 1296. In sum, sufficient information has not been
presented that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the undersigned is biased against
Plaintiff, nor is there any evidence pointing to a personal, non-judicial bias. Id. Plaintiff has
failed to show any valid basis for removal of the undersigned from this action. 28 U.S.C. § 455.
Turning to Plaintiff’s allegations regarding various docket entries in case number 4:14cv-572, which is not the instant case, the Court finds that there is no valid basis for removal
based on these allegations. First, Plaintiff complains that document number 20 on the docket
3
was improperly sealed by the undersigned. Document 20 is simply a notice of the case being
transferred from the Northern District of Texas to the Eastern District of Texas, and provides a
notation on the docket that the original file and docket sheet were received by the district clerk.
There is no substantive information contained in this notation, and the Court did not order it to be
sealed. The substantive order written by the Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Texas
appears on the docket as document number 19, and sets out the legal reasons for the transfer of
the case to the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff claims that the undersigned should have been
aware that the clerk that entered this record falsified a government record; however, this is
incorrect. No documents were falsified, and this docket notation is in compliance with normal
court procedures.
Plaintiff also alleges that document number 25 incorrectly indicates that Plaintiff’s
motion to stay was sent via e-mail. Plaintiff argues that this incorrect notation is a federal crime,
namely obstruction of justice. According to the docket, after Plaintiff’s case number 4:14-cv572 was transferred to the Eastern District of Texas, Plaintiff continued to improperly file
documents in the Northern District of Texas. Rather than reject her filings, the Northern District
of Texas forwarded the documents to the district clerk of the Eastern District of Texas via e-mail.
This docket notation indicates that the clerk received them from the Northern District of Texas
via e-mail on October 3, 2014, and entered them on the docket on October 6, 2014. This is not a
basis for removal, and is certainly not evidence of any federal crime.
Plaintiff also complains that the undersigned knew or should have known that the docket
for case number 4:14-cv-572 did not contain chronological numbered docket entries and the
document numbers appear as follows: 22, 23, 25, 24, and 26. Plaintiff contends that the
undersigned should have known that these document numbers do not correspond with the docket
4
for the case transferred in from the Northern District of Texas to the present case. First, when a
case is transferred to this Court it is assigned a new case number, assigned to a district judge, and
given new docket entry numbers pertaining to the new case. This is in accordance with normal
court procedures. Second, the document numbers that appear out of chronological order is an
issue of Plaintiff’s own making. As stated previously, after Plaintiff’s case was transferred to the
Eastern District of Texas, Plaintiff continued to improperly file documents in her case in the
Northern District of Texas. Rather than reject her filings or enter them on a date that would
make the documents untimely, the district clerk docketed the entries as of the date they were
filed in the Northern District of Texas. Specifically, document number 25 was filed by Plaintiff
on September 26, 2014, in the Northern District of Texas, but not received by the Sherman
clerk’s office until October 3, 2014, and not entered on the docket until October 6, 2014. The
subsequent docket entry number 24 is merely a notice of the order entered in the Northern
District of Texas with the attached documents sent from the Northern District of Texas.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s case has been treated the same as any other case on the Court’s docket
and there is no basis for removal of the undersigned.
Plaintiff also asserts that the undersigned cannot be impartial and has violated the
following canons of judicial conduct: (1) performing the duties of judicial office impartially and
diligently; (2) public access to judicial records; (3) conducting the judge’s extra-judicial
activities to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations; (4) avoiding impropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities; and (5) performing the duties of
judicial office impartially and diligently. Plaintiff has no evidence and makes no allegations that
the undersigned is unfair or not impartial. “In order for a judge to be disqualified for bias or
prejudice, the bias must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on some basis
5
other than what the judge learned in the case.” Blank v. Robinson, No. 4:13cv14, 2013 LW
789123, at *2 (E.D. Tex. March 1, 2013) (citing Crawford v. United States Dep’t of Homeland
Sec., 245 F. App’x 369, 383 (5th Cir. 2007)). Plaintiff has simply made no allegations that the
undersigned is biased or prejudiced because of an extrajudicial source or some basis other than
.
what the undersigned has learned in the case.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse Judge (Dkt. #37) is
hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 10th day of June, 2015.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?