Willis v. Chase Home Finance
Filing
27
ORDER REOPENING CASE, ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DECISION, AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT OF FULL FILING FEE; Case reopened., Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations re: 13 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 2 Motion fo r Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Donald D Willis. Plaintiff shall pay the entire filing fee of $400 nlt Nov 1 2013 or his claims will be dismissed. Plaitniff's Motion to Transfer 12 and Motion for Recusal 18 are denied. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this judge's impartiality can reasonably be questioned, nor has he demonstrated that a transfer of venue is warranted. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 11/8/2013) (wrb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
DONALD D. WILLIS
VS.
CHASE HOME FINANCE, ET AL.
§
§
§
§
§
ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-387-Y
ORDER REOPENING CASE, ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DECISION,
AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT OF FILING FEE
The Court has been advised that the United States Court of
Appeals
for
the
Fifth
Circuit
recently
dismissed
Plaintiff's
interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. As a result, the Court
concludes that this case should be and hereby is REOPENED. The clerk
of the Court shall reinstate the Motion to Dismiss (doc. 8) filed
by defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Chase
Home Finance LLC ("JPMC"), on the Court's docket as if filed on this
date.
Furthermore, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for
Transfer (doc. 12) and Motion for Recusal (doc. 18) and the parties'
related briefs. After review, the Court concludes that both motions
should be and hereby are DENIED, for the reasons urged in JPMC's
responses.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that this judge's
impartiality can reasonably be questioned, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), nor
has he demonstrated that a transfer of venue is warranted.1
1
In his reply brief regarding the recusal motion, Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C.
§ 144 as a basis for this judge's recusal, and in support he attaches an
affidavit to his reply brief. This Court does not countenance arguments first
raised in a reply brief, however.
See Conceal City, L.L.C v. Looper Law
Enforcement, LLC, 917 F. Supp. 2d. 611, 623 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (Fitzwater, J.)
(citing Senior Unsecured Creditors' Comm. of First RepublicBank Corp. v. FDIC ,
749 F. Supp. 758, 772 (N.D. Tex. 1990) (Fitzwater, J.); see also Tran Enters, LLC
v. DHL Exp. (USA), Inc., 627 F.3d 1004, 1010 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting that issues
first raised in a reply brief "are not properly before the court"). In any
event, the affidavit Plaintiff submitted is insufficient to demonstrate the type
Additionally, the Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's June
5, 2013 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation and concludes that
they should be and hereby are ADOPTED by this Court.
As a result,
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (doc. 2)
is DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the entire filing and administrative
fees of $400 no later than November 21, 2013, or his claims will be
dismissed.
SIGNED November 8, 2013.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
of bias or prejudice required under section 144.
See David v. Bd. of Sch.
Comm'rs, 517 F.2d 1044, 1051 (5th Cir. 1975) ("It is settled that the requisite
basis of bias or prejudice under § 144 must be extra-judicial.").
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?