Debose v. Florida Polytechnic University Board of Trustees

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 second motion for disqualification, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 144. Dkt. 34. In pertinent part, she asserts the Court is partial because of “ex parte communications” that allegedly occurred. Id. at 6–7. Specifically, the attached affidavit of Plaintiff’s brother states he was at the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse on June 10, 2025. Id. at 9. He saw five people he believed to be either judges or judicial staff who are presiding over, defendants in, or witnesses in the various cases Plaintiff and her siblings have pending in Florida. Id. at 9–10. Affiant “suspect[s] or reasonably believe[s]” that group of people “went to the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division location to meet with Judge [Steven D.] Merryday and/or William F. Jung.” Id. at 10. He believes some sort of conspiracy was entered. Id. at 12. The affidavit attached to Plaintiff’s motion is not relevant to the present proceeding, and is in fact pure fantasy. No serious person would consider it as bona

fide. Plaintiff has failed to show the Court has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party in this case; recusal is not justified. See § 455; § 144; Fox v. Prudential Fin., 178 F. App’x 915, 919 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding a reasonable person

would not find partiality based on unsupported, conclusory statements that “secret discussions” occurred between the defendant and the court); Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1370–72 (M.D. Ga. 2009), aff’d, 368 F. App’x 949 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding (1) the affidavit supporting the motion for recusal was insufficient

because it was not executed by the aggrieved party to the action, as required by § 144, and (2) the unsubstantiated and false accusation that the judge ex parte met with a third party did not support recusal).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Plaintiff’s second motion for disqualification, Dkt. 34, is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 26, 2025. /s/ William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record Plaintiff, pro se