Richards v. Wallace

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: July 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00273
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EDDIE RICHARDS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 25-0273 LT. RHONDA WALLACE, ET AL. SECTION “B”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS

Plaintiff Eddie Richards filed a Motion for Rehearing (ECF No. 24) for reconsideration on the Court’s denial of his motion to recuse the undersigned Magistrate Judge from these proceedings. As grounds for the motion, Richards asserts that the undersigned cannot rule on a pending motion requesting their own removal. ECF No. 24 at 2. In support of his claim, Richards explains that his claims were previously raised in federal court and rehearing of the same claims when his suit was removed by defendants is prohibited by res judicata and the Court lacks jurisdiction. Id. at 3. Richards contends the actions of the undersigned are illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional and one cannot rule in a fair manner in a case where their recusal has been requested. Id. at 4. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a magistrate judge “shall disqualify [her]self in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Under the additional provisions of § 455(b)(1), a magistrate judge shall also disqualify herself “[w]here [she] has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”1 The Court does not hold any basis for its recusal. It is well settled that “the alleged bias must be ‘personal’, as distinguished from judicial, in nature.” Manley v. Invesco, 555 F. App’x 344, 349 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Phillips v. Joint Legislative Comm., 637 F.2d 1014, 1020 (5th Cir. 1981)). A motion for recusal or disqualification is not to be predicated

1The Court has considered other factors addressed in § 455(a) and (b) and finds no other to have been raised nor is any other provision called into question by the knowledge, actions, or financial holdings of the Court. on a judge’s rulings nor a judge’s “judicial leaning or attitude derived from [her] experience on the bench.” Phillips, 637 F.2d at 1014. The undersigned holds no personal bias against Richards. The Court’s rulings have been based strictly on the record of the proceedings before it and provide no reason to question the Court’s impartiality. There is no suggestion from this that would cause a reasonable person to question the Court’s impartiality or to believe that any such personal bias or prejudice exists. The Court finds no subjective or objective grounds for its recusal from this proceeding. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Eddie Richards’s Motion for Rehearing (ECF No. 24) is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this Ist day of July, 2025.

\—_KARES-WEVLS RO ere UNITED STATES MAGISTR& JUDGE