Thompson v. Singleton

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATOSHIA THOMPSON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO: 22-594

TASHION SINGLETON ET AL. SECTION: “H”

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff LaToshia A. Thompson’s Motion for Recusal or in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings for New Appointment or Grant Immediate Judgment (Doc. 40). As Plaintiff has already filed a Motion for Recusal (Doc. 27), which this Court denied on March 3, 2023 (Doc. 30), the Court will treat Plaintiff’s Motion as a request to reconsider its previous holding. As this Court explained in its previous Order, Plaintiff does not articulate any proper grounds for recusal. Judicial actions do not support recusal “unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”1 Plaintiff’s second Motion for Recusal fails to articulate any extrajudicial basis for recusal.2 Thus, recusal is not proper and the Court declines to reconsider its previous Order.

1 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). 2 Id. (“Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”); See also Wiley v. Dept. of Energy, et al., No. 21-933, Doc. 37 at 4 (E.D. La. July 8, 2021) (“Information gained through the role as judge in the case cannot be the basis for disqualification.”). New Orleans, Louisiana this 6th day of July, 2028.

g TRICHE Lh 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE