Gary Lee Wheeler v. James McDonough
This text of 210 F. App'x 988 (Gary Lee Wheeler v. James McDonough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
After oral argument and a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the district court judge erred by failing to recuse himself from Appellant Gary Lee Wheeler’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings, where the judge also was the chief judge of the state appellate court that affirmed, on direct appeal, the state convictions now being challenged by Wheeler in his § 2254 petition. In doing so, we join the other circuits which have held that 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) requires a district court judge to recuse himself under similar circumstances. See Clemmons v. Wolfe, 377 F.3d 322 (3d Cir.2004); Russell v. Lane, 890 F.2d 947 (7th Cir.1989); Rice v. McKenzie, 581 F.2d 1114 (4th Cir.1978).
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s August 24, 2005 order denying Wheeler’s motion to vacate, filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6); vacate the district court’s November 14, 2002 order dismissing Wheeler’s § 2254 petition; order that Wheeler’s § 2254 petition be reinstated nunc pro tunc as of the date of its original filing; and direct that Wheeler’s § 2254 petition be assigned to a different district court judge who has not participated in the review of Wheeler’s convictions at issue while serving in the state courts.
REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED TO REINSTATE PETITION.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
210 F. App'x 988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-lee-wheeler-v-james-mcdonough-ca11-2006.