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)

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