Reese v. Davis

Filing 26

ORDER denying 25 Motion for Recusal. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Frances H Stacy) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UN IT ED STA TES DISTR ICT COUR T
FO R T HE SO UTHE RN DISTR IC T O F TEXA S
HOUSTON DIVISION

November 09, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

RODERICK L . REESE,

TDCJ #1027930,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACT ION NO . H-17-2844
LO RIE DA V IS ,

Respondent .

ORDER RECAQDING MOTION TO RECUSE MKGISTRATE JUDGE

State inmate Roderick

Reese (
TDCJ #1027930) filed this

habeas corpus under

petition
challenging
incarcerated

disciplinary

the Wayne

conviction

Unit

2254,
received

while

the Texas Department

(' DCJ')
'T
'
proceeds p ro se in this case .

Pending is Petitioner's Motion for

Recusal/Disqualification of Judge.

See Docket Entry

Petitioner does not specify the name of the judge he wishes
recuse

states that the judge in question has previously denied
Accordingly, the Court construes the motion

as seeking the recusal
concludes that
follow .

undersigned magistrate judge and

motion should be DEN IED for the reasons that

Standard of Review

motion

recuse

targeted judge,

committed

the denial

reversed on appeal unless

discretion
be

such a motion

judge has abused her discretion.

United States v . Bremers, l95 F.3d 221, 226 (
5th Cir. 1999)7 United

States v. Anderson,

omitted).
where

F.3d

Cir. 1998) (
citations

nThe judge abuses

discretion

denying recusal

reasonable man, cognizant of the relevant circum stances

surrounding

(
thej

judge's

legitimate doubts about

failure

harbor

judge's impartiality.'' Andrade v.
'

Chotnacki,

Cir. 2003) (
citation omitted)

When considering

5 455(
a),

recuse, would

motion

disqualify pursuant

Court applies

objective standard

whether a reasonable person with knowledge

would conclude that

determine

relevant facts

judge's impartiality might reasonably be

questioned. Litekv v. United States,

1153 (1994).

stated that nAl
aqs

general rule,

purposes of recusal, a judge's '
personal' knowledge

facts means '
extrajudicial,' so facts learned
her judicial capacity regarding
whether learned in the same

evidentiary

judge in his

parties before

related proceeding, cannot be the

basis for disqualification .'' Brown v . Oil States Skalit Smatco,
'
664

F.3d

Cir .

(
quoting Conklinq v . Turner,

592 (
5th Cir. 1998)): see also 13D Charles Alan Wright ,
2

et a1., FED
ERAL PRACTIC AND PR
E
OCED
URE 5

( g
n Kqnowledge

disputed facts learned from judicial proceedings generally will not
require recusal./).
'
II .

Discuasion

Petitioner contends that the undersigned should recuse herself
from

denied all of his motions and

has granted extensions
his petition .

time to the Respondent

Docket Entry

file an answer

Petitioner contends

the undersigned's rulings against Petitioner and in favor of

Respondent shows more

inherent bias and prejudice. Id.

maintains that the undersigned

thwarting Petitioner's attempts

acquire exculpatory evidence and that

alleged obstruction

ucannot be deemed in the interest of justice.' Docket Entry No.
'

Title 28

$ 455( requires that uE
a)
alny justice, judge

or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself
in any proceeding

questioned.'
'
moving

which

28
undersigned

impartiality might reasonably be

$ 455(
a).
recuse

undersigned's previous rulings.

Petitioner's sole basis for
this

matter

Adverse rulings

judicial

proceeding are

not constitute

grounds for recusal. See Liteky,

(
citing United

States v. Grinnell, 384

563,
3

(
1966))7 In re Hipr, Incw

1993). Accordingly, he does

F. 109,
3d
valid basis for recusal

show any

this

Because Petitioner states no valid basis

the undersigned's

recusal,

ORDERED

the motion

recuse

undersigned

(
Docket

Entry No. 25) is DENIED .
The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Order to the parties of
record .
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this

day of

r 2018.

FRA NC ES H . STA C Y
UN IT ED STA TE S MA G ISTRA TE JU DGE