Thompson-El v. Greater Dover Boys and Girls Club

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RICKY THOMPSON-EL, ) Plaintiff, ) V. C.A. No. 18-1426-RGA GREATER DOVER BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, ) Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Ricky Thompson-E] filed this employment discrimination case on September 13, 2018. (D.I. 1). On November 27, 2018, | dismissed the Complaint. 6, 7). In part, | dismissed individual Defendants Chris Basher, Robin Roberts, and Trish Moses. On April 25, 2019, | denied Plaintiffs request to reinstate the dismissed defendants. (D.I.11). On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for my recusal/petition to move. (D.I. 78). | now decide that motion. Plaintiff moves for my recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge is required to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The test for recusal under § 455(a) is whether a “reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” In re Kensington Int’! Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004). The movant does not have to show that the “judge actually harbors bias against a party.” United States v. Kennedy, 682 F.3d 244, 258 (3d

Cir. 2012). Under § 455(b)(1), a judge is required to recuse himself “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” Under either subsection, the bias necessary to require recusal generally “must stem from a source outside of the official proceedings.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994): Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 155, 167 (3d Cir. 2004) (beliefs or opinions which merit recusal must involve an extrajudicial factor). Hence, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. It is evident in reading Plaintiffs motion that he takes exception to this Court's dismissal of the three individual defendants. A reasonable, well-informed observer could not believe that my rulings were based on impartiality, bias, or actual prejudice. After careful and deliberate consideration, | conclude that | have no actual bias or prejudice towards Plaintiff and that a reasonable, well-informed observer would not question my impartiality. In light of the foregoing standard, and after considering Plaintiffs assertions, | conclude that there are no grounds for my recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. For the above reasons, the Court will deny the motion for recusal/petition to move. (D.I. 78). An appropriate order will be entered. Y fd b day UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE June 24, 2022 Wilmington, Delaware