Hoskins v. Waukesha County Jail Administration et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C. Griesbach on 7/31/18. The 31 MOTION for disqualification will therefore be DENIED. (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Michael S. Hoskins)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MICHAEL S. HOSKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-C-413

ANGELA WOLLENHAUPT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Hoskins, an inmate currently serving a state prison sentence at Waupun
Correctional Institution and representing himself, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that the defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was in custody at the Waukesha County
Jail. This matter comes before the court on Hoskins’ motion asking that I disqualify myself from
serving as the judge in this matter. ECF No. 31. Hoskins asserts that the court’s decisions denying
several of his motions in this and other cases he has filed reflect a bias against him and show
insufficient regard for his lack of education and status as a pro se plaintiff. Additionally, he contends
that the court’s order in another case screening his complaint and dismissing it for failure to state a
claim was rude and unprofessional. See Screening Order, Hoskins v. Walker, No. 18-C-1050 (E.D.
Wis. July 13, 2018), ECF No 8.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and under § 455(b)(1), a judge must also disqualify
himself from overseeing any proceeding “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party.” Essentially, “[t]he question under § 455 is whether a reasonable person, knowing all the

circumstances, ‘would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.’” United States v. Betts-Gaston,
860 F.3d 525, 537 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Chitimacha Tribe of La. v. Harry L. Laws Co., 690 F.2d
1157, 1165 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Under this standard, I find that Hoskins’ motion should be denied. Any decisions on
Hoskins’ motions and other filings reflect legal analysis of his claims and requests, and they are not
the product of an unfavorable bias towards him. Having reviewed the decision he references, I find
nothing rude or unprofessional in the decision to dismiss his claim. In this case in particular, the
court has taken seriously its duty to assist him with identifying the John Doe correctional officers
who allegedly caused his injuries. See Donald v. Cook Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548, 556 (7th
Cir. 1996); Billman v. Ind. Dep’t of Corr., 56 F.3d 785, 790 (7th Cir. 1995). Hoskins may disagree
with the court’s decisions, but “a party’s displeasure with legal ruling does not form an adequate
basis for recusal.” Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2000).
His motion for disqualification (ECF No. 31) will therefore be DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2018.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2