Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denies Alfred Rhiner’s motion to recuse the assigned judge and his construed motion for relief from an earlier procedural order. The court holds that disagreement with procedural rulings and speculative allegations of judicial bias do not satisfy the recusal standards, and it requires Rhiner to file an amended civil rights complaint using the standard form within 80 days.
Holdings
- Section 144 did not provide a basis for recusal because Rhiner did not file the timely and sufficient affidavit required to establish personal bias or prejudice.
- Recusal was not warranted because Rhiner's disagreement with the court's procedural rulings and his speculative, unsubstantiated allegations of a judicial financial interest did not create a reasonable question about the judge's impartiality or establish personal bias.
- Rhiner was not entitled to relief from the prior order under Rule 60(b)(6) because the asserted difficulty of presenting his allegations on the standard form was not an extraordinary circumstance.
- Rhiner was required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Middle District of Florida's local rule requiring incarcerated pro se litigants to use the standard form for a civil-rights complaint, and he was not required to include all accumulated evidence in the operative pleading.
Questions Presented
- Whether the judge was required to recuse under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455 based on adverse procedural rulings, alleged bias, and speculative financial interests.
- Whether Rhiner was entitled to reconsideration or relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) from the order requiring use of the standard form for his amended complaint.
- Whether Rhiner's amended complaint had to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Middle District of Florida's local rule requiring a standard form for pro se incarcerated civil-rights complaints.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)(followed)
- McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Ginsberg v. Evergreen Sec., Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Wood v. Frederick, No. 21-12238, 2022 WL 1742953, at *4 (11th Cir. May 31, 2022)(followed)
- Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 123 (2017)(followed)
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…