Clark v. McAllister

N.D. Mississippi

Clark v. McAllister

DecidedApril 24, 2024

Docket3:21-cv-00219

StatusUnknown

This text of Clark v. McAllister (Clark v. McAllister) 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

Clark v. McAllister, (N.D. Miss. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

CANDRA CLARK PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:21CV219-RP

WARDEN CHRIS MCALLISTER SHERIFF KARL GILLARD CHANCERY COURT JUDGE ROBERT Q. WHITWELL DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF RECUSAL For the reasons set forth below, the presiding judge will recuse himself from this case. 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). In this case, the presiding judge was the complainant in a criminal case in which Ms. Clark was the defendant. As a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might be questioned. As such the undersigned RECUSES himself

from this case. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign this case to another judge. SO ORDERED, this, the 24th day of April, 2024.

/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

CANDRA CLARK PLAINTIFF

v. No. 3:21CV219-RP

WARDEN CHRIS MCALLISTER SHERIFF KARL GILLARD CHANCERY COURT JUDGE ROBERT Q. WHITWELL DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF RECUSAL For the reasons set forth below, the presiding judge will recuse himself from this case. 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). In this case, the presiding judge was the complainant in a criminal case in which Ms. Clark was the defendant. As a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might be questioned. As such the undersigned RECUSES himself

from this case. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign this case to another judge. SO ORDERED, this, the 24th day of April, 2024.

/s/ Roy Percy UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clark v. McAllister, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-mcallister-msnd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack