Debose v. Florida Polytechnic University Board of Trustees

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00828
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Angela Debose,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-828-WFJ-AAS

Florida Polytechnic University Board of Trustees,

Defendant. _________________________________/

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification. Dkt. 26. In pertinent part, she argues the undersigned has engaged in “judicial protectionism” by remanding a related case to State Court after terminating defendant judges based on judicial immunity (Case No. 8:25-cv-400 at Dkts. 19, 23). Id. at 3–4. She also argues the Court’s rulings in this case show partiality. Id. at 4–5. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges the Court denying her motion for default judgment (Dkt. 13), notwithstanding the Court (1) granting Defendant’s motion for extension of time to answer (Dkts. 5, 6), and (2) ordering Plaintiff to show cause why her present complaint is not subject to the bar order entered in Case No. 8:21-cv-2127, Dkt. 81 at 15–16 (Dkt. 15). A district court judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). He shall

disqualify himself “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” § 455(b)(1). “Ordinarily, a judge’s rulings in the same or a related case may not serve

as the basis for a recusal motion.” McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990). “The judge’s bias must be personal and extrajudicial.” Id. “An exception to this general rule occurs when the movant demonstrates ‘pervasive bias and prejudice.’” Id. (citation omitted).

Here, none of Plaintiff’s alleged bases for the undersigned’s recusal involve either personal bias toward a party or personal knowledge of facts in this case. See § 455(b)(1). Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s rulings in this case and Case No.

8:25-cv-400. Dkt. 26 at 3–5. These are judicial decisions that are not indicative of pervasive bias and prejudice, and do not serve as bases for recusal. See, e.g., McWhorter, 906 F.2d at 678. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification, Dkt. 26, is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 18, 2025. /s/ William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record Plaintiff, pro se