Chatham (Bell) et al v. Napolitano

Filing 38

OPINION AND ORDER denying 36 Motion to Recuse; denying 37 Motion for Oral Hearing.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION GILA ALTMAN and CARL ALTMAN VS. JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security § § § § § § MISCELLANEOUS NO. G-10-MC-3004 (Lead Case No. G-10-cv-487) OPINION AND ORDER After thoughtful and serious consideration, the Motion to Recuse will be denied. It is unfortunate Plaintiff’s counsel feels as he does, but none of the grounds asserted stem from any extrajudicial source. Nor do they display the deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism rendering fair judgment impossible as required for disqualification. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Andrade v. Chojnacki, 228 F.3d 448, 462 (5th Cir. 2003) In summary, the prior findings and decisions were based upon evidence presented during the trials; the perceived threat of sanctions was prompted by information, even if erroneous, that counsel did not plan to personally attend the requested hearing; and the denial of a new expert, whose opinions merely bolstered the opinions of Plaintiff’s designated expert, occurred after discovery had been completed and the long-pending cases were ready for disposition. As to counsel’s July 11 letter, after reading the first sentence I set it aside and chose not to complete it; I only read it in full after it was attached to the Motion. It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse (Instrument no. 36) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument (Instrument no. 37) on that Motion is DENIED. DONE at Galveston, Texas, this 2nd 2 day of July, 2015.

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?