Halford v. Frederick

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

EARNEST L. HALFORD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 21-CV-279

ABBY FREDERICK ,

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 9, 2023, plaintiff Earnest L. Halford filed a motion demanding that Judge William E. Duffin recuse himself from the case. (ECF No. 69.) On a motion to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge must “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This requires some allegation of appearance of bias such as suggesting the judge relied upon knowledge acquired outside such proceedings or displayed deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 556 (1994). Halford’s reasons for recusal are based on wild conspiracy theories regarding a fake surveillance video and alleged tampering with Halford’s mail. Halford presents no evidence that gives credibility to his allegations. As such, Halford fails to demonstrate that this court’s impartiality is reasonably questioned. His motion for recusal (ECF No. 69) is DENIED. Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 18th day of January, 2023.

BY THE COURT

WILLIAM E. DUFFIN United States Magistrate Judge