McAfee v. Clayton County Justice Center

• Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
• Decided: October 31, 2019
• Docket: 4:18-cv-01486
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL MCAFEE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:18-cv-01486-SNLJ ) CLAYTON COUNTY JUSTICE ) CENTER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Michael McAfee’s pro se motion for change of judge (ECF 28). As a basis for his motion, plaintiff says the undersigned has a “prior bias history … in African American cases” and has “more credibility towards police officers.” A judge “should not recuse themselves solely because a party claims an appearance of partiality.” In Re Medtronic, Inc. v. Sprint Fidelis Leads Prod. Liab. Litig., 601 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1128 (D. Minn. 2009) (emphasis in original). Moreover, prior “judicial rulings”—whatever plaintiff believes them to show—“rarely establish a valid basis for recusal.” U.S. v. Melton, 738 F.3d 903, 906 (8th Cir. 2013). Simply put, plaintiff’s baseless accusations fail to show the sort of “deep-seated antagonism that would make fair judgments impossible.” U.S. v. Larsen, 427 F.3d 1091, 1095 (8th Cir. 2005); see also Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Conclusory statements [of bias] are of no effect. Nor are counsel's unsupported beliefs and assumptions. Frivolous and improperly based suggestions that a judge recuse should be firmly declined.”’). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for change of judge (ECF 28) is DENIED. So ordered this 31st day of October 2019.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE