Free Order on Motion for Recusal - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00219-KAJ Document 9 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 1 of 3 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KEVIN SIDNEY EPPERSON, )
Plaintiff, g
v. ) Civ. N0. 05-219-KAJ
COMMISSIONER STANLEY TAYLOR, g
WARDEN THOMAS CARROLL, )
DENTAL DEPARTMENT, )
DENTIST WOMAN, and )
APPOINTMENT WOMAN, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before me is plaintiff Kevin Sidney Epperson's ("Epperson") letter
motion requesting my recusal. (Docket Item ["D.l."] 4; the "Motion") Forthe reasons
stated below, I will deny the motion.
Epperson is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Delaware Correctional
Center in Smyrna, Delaware. His SBI No. is 156562. On April 13, 2005, Epperson filed
a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with an application to proceed m
paugeris pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.l. 1; D.I. 2.) On April 26, 2005, I granted
Epperson's request to proceed m pauperis and ordered him to file a certified
copy of his prison trust account statement within thirty days or the complaint would be
dismissed. (D.l. 5.) Epperson Hled the pending motion on April 22, 2005. (D.I. 4.) He

Case 1:05-cv-00219-KAJ Document 9 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 2 of 3
argues that I am prejudiced against him, based on my rulings regarding a habeas
corpus petition he filed.'
Epperson does not cite any authority as the basis for his request for recusal.
Therefore, I will analyze the request under both 28 U.S.C §§ 144 and 455. In order to
be disqualifying, both § 144 and § 455 require that the alleged bias or prejudice stem
from an extrajudicial source. gee Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
"Extrajudicial source" means a source outside the present or priorjudicial proceedings.
gag Q. at 555 (emphasis added).
Section 144 requires that a party seeking recusal file a "timely and sufficient
affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or
prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party E 28 U.S.C. § 144
(emphasis added). "Conclusory allegations need not be accepted as true." Jones v.
Pittsburgh Nat. Corp., 899 F.2d 1350, 1356 (3d Cir. 1990)(citing United States v.
gg, 868 F.2d 1328, 1340 (3d Cir. 1989)). In this case, Epperson’s affidavit is not
sufficient to support his claims. Epperson has not presented any facts to support his
motion. He has merely presented his conclusory allegation that I "cause[d] prejudice to
the Constitutional rights of petitioner." (D.|. 4) He appears to base his theory, as well
as his request for recusal, not on any tangible evidence but on judicial rulings made in
his prior habeas case.
However, "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
partiality motion." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 555 (citing United States v.
‘Epperson stated that my rulings were made in a criminal case, but the only prior
matter I have handled involving him is his habeas case, C.A. No. 04-332—KA.J.
2

Case 1:05-cv-00219-KAJ Document 9 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 3 of 3
Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966)). The Supreme Court explained that judicial
rulings "in and of themselves can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree
of favoritism or antagonism required" to prove bias. Q. Epperson's bare allegation that
I am biased against him has no merit and is, therefore, insufficient to support his
Mmmm
Additionally, under § 455, "[a]ny justice, judge or magistrate of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 455 requires a judge to raise the issue of bias
g sj . "Under this section a judge must consider whether a reasonable person
knowing all the circumstances would harbor doubts concerning the judge’s impartiality."
, 899 F.2d at 1356 (citing United States v. Dalfonso, 707 F.2d 757, 760 (3d Cir.
1983)). Again, Epperson has offered no evidence to support his claim that I harbor a
bias against him. Consequently, I find that no reasonable person, knowing all the
circumstances, would harbor doubts concerning my impartiality.
Because Epperson has failed to allege facts to prove that I have a personal bias
or prejudice against him and, further, has failed to show that a reasonable person,
knowing all the circumstances, would harbor doubts concerning my impartiality, his
request for recusal must be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2005, that
Epperson’s letter motion for recusal (D.l. 4) is DENIED. E __i__
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ E ·-
u ( tt U
Wilmington, Delaware
3