Halford v. Frederick et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 1/18/2023, DENYING plaintiff's motion for recusal. (ECF No. 69 ). (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(mlm)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN EARNEST L. HALFORD, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 21-CV-279 ABBY FREDERICK , Defendant. ORDER On January 9, 2023, plaintiff Earnest L. Halford filed a motion demanding that Judge William E. Duffin recuse himself from the case. (ECF No. 69.) On a motion to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge must “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This requires some allegation of appearance of bias such as suggesting the judge relied upon knowledge acquired outside such proceedings or displayed deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 556 (1994). Halford’s reasons for recusal are based on wild conspiracy theories regarding a fake surveillance video and alleged tampering with Halford’s mail. Halford presents no evidence that gives credibility to his allegations. As such, Halford fails to demonstrate that this court’s impartiality is reasonably questioned. His motion for recusal (ECF No. 69) is DENIED. Case 2:21-cv-00279-WED Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 2 Document 70 Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 18th day of January, 2023. BY THE COURT WILLIAM E. DUFFIN United States Magistrate Judge 2 Case 2:21-cv-00279-WED Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 2 Document 70

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?