Ingram v. Alvarado et al

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's request for recusal of the magistrate judge 59 is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on 12/17/18. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
DARRELL INGRAM

§

VS.

§

MELANIE ALVARADO

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-32

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Darrell Ingram, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff has filed an affidavit requesting recusal of the magistrate judge based on the
magistrate judge’s rulings.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 455 requires a federal judge to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Disqualification is appropriate
if a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the circumstances, would question the court’s
impartiality. United States v. Anderson, 160 F.3d 231, 233 (5th Cir. 1998). In this instance, plaintiff
has failed to set forth any facts which would cause an objective observer to question the magistrate
judge’s impartiality. Thus, the motion to disqualify shall be denied.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 144 allows a party to make and file “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 . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 144. In such a case, another judge shall be assigned to hear
further proceedings. Id. When a §144 motion is filed, the judge must consider the legal sufficiency
of the affidavit, but may not resolve factual issues. Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 483
(5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Merkt, 794 F.2d 950, 960 (5th Cir. 1986). An affidavit is legally
sufficient if: (1) the facts are material and stated with particularity; (2) the facts, if true, would
convince a reasonable person that bias exists; and (3) the facts show that the bias is personal in nature.

Netsphere, Inc. v. Baron, 703 F.3d 296, 315 (5th Cir. 2012). Absent surrounding comments or
accompanying opinion, judicial rulings alone will rarely constitute a valid basis for a motion to recuse
or disqualify. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448,
.
455 (5th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff’s affidavit to recuse the magistrate judge is not legally sufficient. Plaintiff’s
complaints about judicial rulings are not a valid basis for recusal or disqualification. In this situation,
a reasonable person would not be convinced that bias exists. As a result, plaintiff’s affidavit is legally
insufficient to require recusal of the magistrate judge. It is accordingly
ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for recusal of the magistrate judge (document no. 59) is
DENIED.

SIGNED this the 17th day of December, 2018.

____________________________________
KEITH F. GIBLIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2