John Hessmer v. Warden Grady Perry

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denies John Hessmer’s motion seeking recusal of the assigned judge and his motion to reconsider dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. The court concludes that Hessmer has not shown grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455 and has not demonstrated entitlement to relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b)(6). The court also denies the in forma pauperis application as moot and leaves the case closed.

Holdings

1. Adverse judicial rulings and Hessmer's allegations did not establish personal bias or prejudice, or otherwise satisfy the substantial burden required for recusal under § 455(b)(1).
2. The asserted grounds did not cause the judge's impartiality to be reasonably questioned by an objective person knowing all the circumstances.
3. The Court was not required to consider Hessmer's request for recusal under § 144 because he did not submit the required supporting affidavit.
4. Hessmer was not entitled to alter or amend the dismissal under Rule 59(e) because he identified no clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, intervening change in controlling law, or manifest injustice.
5. Hessmer was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because he did not show exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief from the judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the judge was required to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) because of alleged personal bias or prejudice.
2. Whether the circumstances created an objectively reasonable question about the judge's impartiality under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
3. Whether recusal was required under 28 U.S.C. § 144 despite Hessmer's failure to submit a supporting affidavit.
4. Whether Hessmer was entitled to relief from the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
5. Whether Hessmer was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

Disposition

other