Home/D. Nebraska/Franklin v. Department of Health & Human Services

Franklin v. Department of Health & Human Services

District Court, D. Nebraska·Decided November 16, 2021·No. 8:21-cv-00087·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MICHAEL L. FRANKLINJR.,

Plaintiff, 8:21CV87

vs. ORDER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant.

Plaintiff moves for my recusal due to alleged bias and a conflict of interest. (Filing No. 51). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.

DISCUSSION

Every judicial officer must satisfy herself that she is unbiased toward the parties in each case and that her impartiality is not reasonably subject to question. The judge presiding over a case is in the best position to appreciate the implications of those matters alleged in a recusal motion. In deciding whether to recuse [her]self, the trial judge must carefully weigh the policy of promoting public confidence in the judiciary against the possibility that those questioning his impartiality might be seeking to avoid the adverse consequences of [her] presiding over their case. In re Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 85 F.3d 1353, 1358 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting In re Drexel, 861 F.2d 1307, 1312 (2d Cir. 1988). See also, United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1202-03 (7th Cir. 1985) (decisions with respect to disqualification should be made by the judge sitting in the case, and not by another judge.) “A party introducing a motion to recuse carries a heavy burden of proof; a judge is presumed to be impartial and the party seeking disqualification bears the substantial burden of proving otherwise.” Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Co., 323 F.3d 661, 664 (8th Cir. 2003).

“[T]he recusal inquiry must be made from the perspective of a reasonable observer who is informed of all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004); O'Bannon v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 169 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir.1999); Lunde v. Helms, 29 F.3d at 370. A judge must recuse herself if her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” (28 U.S.C. §455(a)). But she has an equal obligation not to recuse herself when there is no reason to do so. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. F.C.C, 153 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 1998). As the legislative history of 28 U.S.C. §455 explains, disqualification for lack of impartiality must have a reasonable basis. Nothing in this legislation should be read to warrant the transformation of a litigant's fear that a judge may decide a question against him into a “reasonable fear” that the judge will not be impartial. Litigants should not have to face a judge where there is a reasonable question of impartiality, but they are not entitled to a judge of their own choice. House Report No. 93-1453, adopting Senate Report No. 93-419, 3 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 1974, pp. 6351-6363 at 6355. Plaintiff argues I must recuse myself because of my “continuing demonstrable prejudice against him.” He claims I have accused Plaintiff of “bragging and being boastful with no proper evidence” to support this claim, and I have “attacked the plaintiff personally.” Plaintiff further states that I have “some type of personal relationship with the defendant.” (Filing No. 51). I have never talked to the parties, including Plaintiff. So, my only statements regarding this case or the plaintiff are in writing. None of my written rulings, including the findings and recommendation of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (Filing No. 48), have attacked the plaintiff or accused him of bragging. And I have no personal relationship with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, or anyone who works for that state entity. I am not biased, for or against, any of the parties to this case. Moreover, “a reasonable observer who is informed of all the surrounding facts and circumstances” would not conclude that I am unable to fairly consider and rule on the issues. The plaintiff’s motion to recuse will be denied. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal, (Filing No. 51), is denied.

Dated this 16th day of November, 2021.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge

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

Franklin v. Department of Health & Human Services, (D. Neb. 2021).

Franklin v. Department of Health & Human Services (Franklin v. Department of Health & Human Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia
541 U.S. 913 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Frank Peter Balistrieri, Steve Disalvo, and Dennis Librizzi, Defendants
779 F.2d 1191 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)
In Re Kansas Public Employees Retirement System
85 F.3d 1353 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Southern New England Telephone Company Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel United States Telephone Association Ameritech Corporation U S West, Inc. Rural Telephone Coalition Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company Gte Service Corporation Gte Alaska, Incorporated Gte Arkansas Incorporated Gte California, Incorporated Gte Florida, Incorporated Gte Midwest, Incorporated Gte South, Incorporated Gte Southwest, Incorporated Gte North, Incorporated Gte Hawaiian Telephone Company, Incorporated Gte West Coast, Incorporated Contel of Minnesota, Inc. Contel of the South, Inc. Missouri Public Service Commission Gte Northwest, Incorporated Pacific Bell Nevada Bell, Intervenors on Appeal. v. Federal Communications Commission United States of America, Association for Local Telecommunications Services American Telephone and Telegraph Company Telecommunications Resellers Association the Competition Policy Institute Information Technology Association of America National Cable Television Association, Inc. Internet Access Coalition Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Worldcom, Inc. Sprint Corporation Telco Communications Group, Inc. Excel Telecommunications, Inc. Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies Time Warner Communications Holdings, Inc. MCI Telecommunications Corporation Ny Telephone New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenors on Appeal. America's Carriers Telecommunication Association, Intervenors on Appeal, Commercial Internet Exchange Association, Amicus Curiae. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Ameritech Corporation Time Warner Communications Holdings Us Telephone Association Gte Service Corporation Gte Alaska, Incorporated Gte Arkansas, Incorporated Gte California, Incorporated Gte Florida, Incorporated Gte Midwest, Incorporated Gte South, Incorporated Gte Southwest, Incorporated Benjamin Wayne McCoin Inc. Gte Northwest, Incorporated Gte Hawaiian Telephone Company, Incorporated Gte West Coast, Incorporated Contel of Minnesota, Inc. Contel of the South, Inc. Association for Local Telecommunications Services Bell Atlantic-Maryland, Inc. Bell Atlantic-Washington, D.C., Inc. Bell Atlantic-West Virginia, Inc. Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc. Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc. Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc. Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. New York Telephone Company New England Telephone and Telegraph Company Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, Intervenors on Appeal. v. Federal Communications Commission United States of America, American Telephone and Telegraph Company Telecommunications Resellers Association MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Lbc Communications, Inc. Worldcom, Inc. Competitive Telecommunications Association, Intervenors on Appeal
153 F.3d 520 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)
O'Bannon v. Union Pacific R. Co.
169 F.3d 1088 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
Dallas Fletcher and Katherine Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Company
323 F.3d 661 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)