Silva v. Spring Branch ISD et al

Filing 84

ORDER denying 65 MOTION Disqualify the Magistrate Judge; denying 76 MOTION Plaintiff's Verified Supplemented Motion for Disqualification and Supporting Memorandum of Law. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR ICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

ENTERED
December 22, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

SA GR AR IO E . S ILV A ,

Plaintiff,
CIV IL A CTION NO . H-16-0545

SPRING BRANCH INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT , et al .,
Defendants .

Pending before the court are Plaintiff's Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Order (
Docket Entry No. 58), Plaintiff's Motion
to Disqualify
Disqualify'
')

the Magistrate
(
Docket

Entry

Judge
No.

('plaintiff's Motion
A
Plaintiff's

to

Verified

Supplemented Motion for Disqualification and Supporting Memorandum

of Law (
nplaintiff's Supplemented Motion' (
') Docket Entry No .
and Plaintiff's A ffidavit

in Support of Motion to D isqualify

Magistrate Judge (
Docket Entry No . 77).
Under the rules , the District Judge mu st consider timely

objections to a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive
matter .

Fed. R . Civ . P. 72 (
a).

The court will u
modify or set

aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is

contrary to law .' Id.; see also 28 U.S. . 5 636(
'
C
5)

In addition to Plaintiff's objections, the court has reviewed:
SBISD Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Objections to
l
l
The SBISD Defendants are Spring Branch Independent School
District, Karen Heeth , Marianne Cribbin , Gloria Tennon , and
Stephanie Brown .

Magistrate Judge's Order (
Docket Entry No. 60); ( Plaintiff's
2)

Notice of Errors on the Filing of Objections to Magistrate Judge's
Order (
Docket Entry No. 61);

Plaintiff's Letter in Lieu of

Motion in Response to Judge Sim Lake 's Order from December 8, 2016

(
Docket Entry No. 72)7 ( SBISD Defendants' Response in Opposition
4)
to Plaintiff's 'Letter in Lieu of Motion in Response to Judge Sim
'

Lake's Order from December 8, 2016' (
' Doc 72) (
Docket Entry No. 74)7
al1 of the briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (
Docket
Entry Nos. 36, 38, 4O, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54)7

( the transcript of the hearing held on October
6)
Entry No . 81)7

2016 (
Docket

the magistrate judge's oral order on Plaintiff's

Motion to Compel;

Plaintiff 's Motion to Request Reasons for

Denial of Motion to Compel and Magistrate Judge'l Report and
s)
Recommendations (
Docket Entry No. 57); and

the magistrate

judge's written Order dated December 15, 2016 (
Docket Entry
No . 73).
Having rev iewed a11 of these filings , the court concludes that

the magistrate judge's order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is
neither

clearly

erroneous nor

contrary

to

law .

Plaintiff 's

objections are therefore OVERRULED.
Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code directs a

judge to disqualify herself

any proceeding in which E
her)

impartiality might reasonably be questioned .' 28 U.S. . 5 455(
'
C
a)

Certain specific circumstances require that the judge recuse,
including where the judge uhas a personal bias or prejudice

concerning a party .'
'

28 U .
S.C. 5 455( l).
b)(

The standard for

determining whether a judge should recuse based on Section 455 is
uwhether a reasonab le person , with full knowledge of a1l the

circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartialityo'
'
Matassarin v . Lvnch , 174 F.
3d 549, 57l (
5th Cir. 1999) (
quoting
Vieux Carre Property Owners , Residen ts, and A ssocs ., Inc . v . Brown ,

948 F. 1436, 1448 (
2d
5th Cir. 1991)).
Judicial

rulings,

courtroom

adm inistration

efforts,

and

ordinary admonishments to counsel and to witnesses are not valid

bases for motions to recuse for personal bias or prejudice. See
Liteky v. United States,

1147, 1157 (
1994) (1 judge's
'
A

ordinary efforts at courtroom administration-even a stern and

short-tempered judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom administration
-

remain immune E
from establishing a biasl.' see also Raborn v .
');

Inpatient Mqmt . Partners Incw

352 F. App' 881, 884 (
x
5th Cir .

2009) (
unpublished) (
quoting Litekv , 1l4 S . Ct. at 1157, as stating

that 'opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced
l
or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings
do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless
they display a deep -seated favoritism or antagonism that would make

fair judgment impossible')
'

The disqualification decision is

within the usound discretion' of the judge.
'

In re Deepwater

Horizon, 824 F. 571, 579-80 (
3d
5th Cir. 2016)
The court has reviewed Plaintiff's motions to disqualify ;
SBISD Defendants ' Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to

Disqualify the Magistrate Judge (
Docket Entry No.
Defendants'

Response

in

Opposition

to

SBISD

Plaintiff's

Verified

Supplemented Motion for Disqualification and Supporting Memorandum

of Law E
Doc 76) and Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of Motion to
Disqualify Magistrate Judge g
Doc

(
Docket Entry

transcripts of the hearings held on June

and

2016, October 21,

2016, and November 28, 2016 (
Docket Entry Nos. 80,

82)

Plaintiff contends that , at the pretrial con ference , the

magistrate judge udisplayed an improper and unfair conduct in
handling

this

case,' uargu E
'
edq

the

case

in

favor

of

the

defendants ,' uaccused Plaintiff of having legal expertise without
'
offering any evidence ,' and uthreatened
'

dism issal of the

complaint while repeatedly demanding Plaintiff to prov ide legally
grounded explanation of the section 1981 and to offer direct and
specific evidence of age discrimination .' Plaintiff also alleges
'z

that the magistrate judge mishandled the hearing on Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel by not allowing Plaintiff uthe right to argue her
motion

and

without

considering

any

evidence' and
'

that

the

magistrate judge urepeatedly yelled to Plaintiff and told Plaintiff
not to argue any of the facts in her motions' but allowed the SBISD
'

Defendants to file other discovery motions and briefing 'based on
'

z
plaintiff 's Motion to Disqualify , Docket Entry No . 65 , p . 1

$ 3, p . 2 ! 4 .
(

false grounds of wholly new issues' w ithout allowing Plaintiff to
'
discuss the new issues at the hearing .3

In

Plaintiff's

supplemental

motion

for

disqualification ,

Plaintiff alleges that ' ilssues appeared to arise on April
'E

2016, when the magistrate judge's case manager phoned Plaintiff to
reschedule the pretrial hearing initially scheduled for May 26,
2016,' specifically requesting Plaintiff 'to make herself available
'
'
at the 'earliest possible date ' following April

The case

manager did not answer Plaintiff 's inquiry about the rush for the
hearing but hung up and called back later to say that the hearing
would remain as originally scheduled .s

Plaintiff also repeats

prior contentions that the magistrate judge argued Defendants'
case, challenged Plaintiff's assertion that she was litigating
without legal expertise

or

legal assistance , and

interrupted

Plaintiff in order to argue for Defendants .6
Plaintiff also contends that , at the discovery hearing , the

magistrate judge relied only on Defendants' counsels' uunsupported
statements

and

unsubstantiated

representations,'
'

uargued

and

concluded on behalf of the defendants ,' and determined that nthey
'
had provided timely and adequate responses to Plaintiff's requests ,

3
Id. at 2 ff 5, 6
4
plaintiff's Supplemented Motion , Docket Entry No . 76, p . 2

$ 1.
5Id .

6
see id . at 2-4 .

without providing any evidence and without affording Plaintiff a
fair opportunity to rebut such assertions or to argue the evidence
she already had stated in her discovery motions .'
'?

According to

Plaintiff:

Anytime the Plaintiff tried to address the issues , the

magistrate judge interrupted and yelled out loud to
Plaintiff, udon't argue it E,l' 'l told you not (
' %
toq argue
with me ( ' 'l don't want you to talk about the issues in
,q' '
your motions E,)' 'the defendants have provided you timely
' '
responsesl,l' 'their responses are adequate, what are you
''

talking aboutl '
zl'
objections.
v8

uthose

objections

are

normal

Plaintiff describes her perception of an unfair contrast between

how the magistrate judge treated Plaintiff and how the magistrate

judge treated Defendants' counsel. Plaintiff takes issue with the
g
magistrate judge's characterization of uPlaintiff's concerns and
objections as '
unhappiness' because the ruling was not in her
favor'l and with the magistrate judge's comment that, if Plaintiff
'o
did not like the ruling, she could nappeal to Judge Lake ,' which
'

Plaintiff claims the magistrate judge uyelled out in a sarcastic
fO rm .VZZ

Plaintiff alleges that the audio recordings of the hearings,

which were provided to Plaintiff, 'do not accurately reflect what
'

7
Id. at

! 8.

8
Id. at 5 !
g
see id . at

lId. at 7 $ 13.
0
nld. at

! 12.

actually have occurred at the hearings' and that 'the entries in
'
'
the

docket

Plaintiff

do

not

argues

accurately

that

the

reflect

court

the

actual

mischaracterized

filings .' z
'l
Plaintiff's

interaction with the case manager as udisruptive' when Plaintiff
'
merely questioned the case manager about the purpose of the hearing

scheduled for November 28, 2016 , and the case manager was unable to

identify the motion to be addressed x3
Having reviewed the transcripts from the hearings about which
Plaintiff complains, the court finds that Plaintiff mischarac-

terizes the magistrate judge's courtroom comments and

rulings,

misunderstands litigation procedures and practices, and apparently
lacks knowledge of acceptable courtroom decorum . It is clear from

the transcripts that at the initial hearing the magistrate judge
inquired about Plaintiff 's claims in order to better understand the

allegations and at b0th hearings stopped Plaintiff from continuing

argue after the magistrate judge had made her rulings.
Plaintiff's complaints

fall within

the

category

of courtroom

administration efforts and ordinary admonishments that, even if the

magistrate judge was stern or short-tempered, do not suggest
personal bias or prejudice.

See Liteky, l14 S. Ct. at 1157

(' JJudicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical
'(
or disapproving of, or even hostile to , counsel, the parties , or

lId. at 7 j 14.
2
g
za .
zd

their cases , ordinarily

challenge.' .
o

do not

support a bias or partiality

Furthermore, Plaintiff's disagreement over legal

rulings is not a ground for recusal. See id. (ll
' lludicial rulings
alone

almost

partiality

never

constitute

motion.' .
o

a

valid

basis

Plaintiff's Motion

for

a

bias

to Disqualify

or

the

Magistrate Judge (
Docket Entry No. 65) and Plaintiff's Verified
Supplemented Motion for Disqualification (
Docket Entry No .

are

DENIED .

SIGNED in Houston , Texas, on this 22nd day of December , 2016 .

##

K

SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-

8-