UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
February 14, 2008
HENRY MOUNSON, PLAINTIFF,
RAKESHA CHANDRA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Henry Mounson's Motion and Affidavit for Recusal (Doc. 71). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Henry Mounson (Mounson) is a prisoner at Tamms Correctional Center in Tamms, Illinois. Mounson brought this action pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, among other things, that the Defendants violated his civil rights by using excessive force against him and denying him medical care. Mounson contends that my prior orders dismissing some claims and some defendants at the threshold stage, denying him appointed counsel, and denying his motion for summary judgment indicate personal bias against him. Therefore, Mounson requests that I recuse myself.
28 U.S.C. §§ 144and 455(b)(1) both require a judge to disqualify himself from hearing a case where he has "a personal prejudice or bias" concerning a party. Under either statute, the party requesting recusal must aver facts from which a reasonable person could conclude that the judge in the case is motivated by some personal animus or malice against the movant. United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1202 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1490 (1986). The movant must point to specific facts indicating that the judge has bias stemming "from an extra-judicial source" Alexander v. Chicago Park District, 773 F.2d 850, 856 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1492 (1986). (citing United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966)). Prior adverse judicial decisions alone are not indicative of a bias requiring recusal. United States v. Jeffers, 532 F.2d 1101, 1112 (7th Cir. 1976), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 432 U.S. 97 (1977).
Here, Mounson merely complains that my judicial opinions should have been decided in his favor. This alone does not support an inference of bias requiring recusal. Therefore, Mounson's Motion for Recusal (Doc. 71) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.