Chatham (Bell) et al v. Napolitano
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GILA ALTMAN and CARL ALTMAN
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
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
It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse (Instrument no. 36)
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument (Instrument no.
37) on that Motion is DENIED.
DONE at Galveston, Texas, this
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?