Britton v. Shelby

N.D. Mississippi

Britton v. Shelby

DecidedOctober 15, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-00016

StatusUnknown

This text of Britton v. Shelby (Britton v. Shelby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Britton v. Shelby, (N.D. Miss. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

MEIKA DESEAN BRITTON PETITIONER

v. No. 3:19CV16-NBB-RP

WARDEN GEORGIA SHELBY, ET AL. RESPONDENTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [17] FOR RECUSAL

This matter comes before the court on the motion [17] by the plaintiff for the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case to recuse himself. For the reasons set forth below, the instant motion will be denied. Standard for Recusal The statutes for deciding whether recusal is appropriate for a federal judge are 28 U.S.C.A. § 455, and 28 U.S.C. § 144, which use the same standard, namely, “‘[W]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986)). However, “the reasonable person standard in the recusal context contemplates a ‘well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person.’” Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). In addition, “[A] motion for disqualification ordinarily may not be predicated on the judge's rulings in the instant case . . . .” Phillips v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance & Expenditure Review, 637 F.2d 1014, 1020 (5th Cir.1981). A judge’s adverse ruling, even when later reversed or vacated on appeal, does not by itself constitute grounds for recusal. Garcia v. Woman's Hospital of Texas, 143 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 1998). Adverse judicial rulings will only support a claim of bias if they reveal an opinion based on an extrajudicial source – or if they demonstrate such a high degree of animosity as to make fair judgment impossible. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). The plaintiff’s argument is that the Judge has misinterpreted parts of the evidence in the case several times. These interpretations are merely findings adverse to the plaintiff – and do

not set forth a valid reason for the Magistrate Judge to recuse himself. As such, the instant motion [17] for recusal is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the 15th day of October, 2019.

/s/ Roy Percy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

MEIKA DESEAN BRITTON PETITIONER

v. No. 3:19CV16-NBB-RP

WARDEN GEORGIA SHELBY, ET AL. RESPONDENTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [17] FOR RECUSAL

This matter comes before the court on the motion [17] by the plaintiff for the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case to recuse himself. For the reasons set forth below, the instant motion will be denied. Standard for Recusal The statutes for deciding whether recusal is appropriate for a federal judge are 28 U.S.C.A. § 455, and 28 U.S.C. § 144, which use the same standard, namely, “‘[W]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986)). However, “the reasonable person standard in the recusal context contemplates a ‘well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person.’” Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). In addition, “[A] motion for disqualification ordinarily may not be predicated on the judge's rulings in the instant case . . . .” Phillips v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance & Expenditure Review, 637 F.2d 1014, 1020 (5th Cir.1981). A judge’s adverse ruling, even when later reversed or vacated on appeal, does not by itself constitute grounds for recusal. Garcia v. Woman's Hospital of Texas, 143 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 1998). Adverse judicial rulings will only support a claim of bias if they reveal an opinion based on an extrajudicial source – or if they demonstrate such a high degree of animosity as to make fair judgment impossible. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). The plaintiff’s argument is that the Judge has misinterpreted parts of the evidence in the case several times. These interpretations are merely findings adverse to the plaintiff – and do

not set forth a valid reason for the Magistrate Judge to recuse himself. As such, the instant motion [17] for recusal is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this, the 15th day of October, 2019.

/s/ Roy Percy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Britton v. Shelby, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britton-v-shelby-msnd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack