Boyd v. Shannan-Sharpe et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 9/25/15 denying 22 Motion for district judge. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DEMETRIUS MONROE BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-832

LT. SHANNAN-SHARPE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On September 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a “Motion for District Judge.” (Docket #22.)
While it is not stated in the body of plaintiff’s motion, I conclude from the title of the motion
that plaintiff would prefer that a district judge, as a opposed to a magistrate judge, be
assigned to his case. I deny plaintiff’s motion because I am a district judge, not a
magistrate judge.
Additionally, plaintiff has not identified a valid basis to support a request that I
recuse myself from this case. Plaintiff states only that my decisions in other cases he has
filed “appear to be found upon other out of court grounds whether it be personal, racial or
both. . . .” (Docket #22 at 2.) “[I]nferences drawn from prior judicial determinations are
insufficient grounds for recusal because it is the duty of the judge to rule upon issues of
fact and law and questions of conduct which happen to form a part of the proceedings
before him.” U.S. v. Jeffers, 532 F.2d 1101, 1112 (7th Cir. 1976), rev’d in part on other
grounds, 432 U.S. 1977 (1977) (citations omitted). In other words, assuming a personal
bias based on prior judicial actions, overlooks “the basic presumption that a judge
approaches each new case with impartiality and conducts the case on its own merits from

the evidence there presented quite apart from any other case he might have heard.” Id.
Plaintiff bases his request for my recusal solely on adverse decisions I have made in other
cases he has filed, and this alone is fatal to his request. See also U.S. v. Barnes, 909 F.2d
1059, 1072 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Allegations of bias stemming from present and past cases in
which the judge and the moving party were involved are not proper grounds for recusal.”).
Finally, I remind plaintiff that each of his cases stands on its own, and I will not
address in this case my decisions in other cases he has filed. If plaintiff has particular
issues he would like to raise about my decisions, he must raise them in the relevant case.
THEREFORE, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for district judge
(Docket #22) is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 25th day of September, 2015.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2