Brown v. United States

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BLANCHE A. BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 21-829 (JLH) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington, this 2nd day of May 2025, having reviewed pro se Blanche A. Brown’s motion for reconsideration (D.I. 121) and motion for judicial reassignment (D.I. 122); WHEREAS, both motions argue that the January 24, 2025 Memorandum Opinion and Order (D.I. 117, 118), which resulted in summary judgment in Defendant’s favor (D.I. 119), should be vacated, and the undersigned should be recused from the case due to her prior service as a government attorney (which ended in 2019); WHEREAS, no allegation or argument offered in either of Plaintiff’s motions changes the fact that Plaintiff was only granted leave to amend her claim to allege negligence with respect to Tooth #3, and the record contains insufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find a breach of the standard of care, warranting summary judgment in Defendants’ favor; WHEREAS, the Court’s January 24, 2025 Memorandum Opinion previously considered and denied a motion for recusal filed by Plaintiff (D.I. 115, 117), but Plaintiff nonetheless argues that the Court’s January 24, 2025 Memorandum Opinion itself demonstrates bias and partiality; WHEREAS, a judge is required to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) if a “reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004), and a judge must recuse himself under § 455(b)(1) if “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party”; WHEREAS, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion,” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994), and “a party’s displeasure with legal rulings does not form an adequate basis for recusal,” Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000); WHEREAS, after careful and deliberate consideration, I conclude that I have no actual bias or prejudice towards Plaintiff and that a reasonable, well-informed observer would not question my impartiality; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (D.I. 121) 1s DENIED and Plaintiff's motion for judicial reassignment (D.I. 122) is DENIED. \Z e Honorable Jerfnifer Y. Hall United St istrict Judge