Timothy Sneed v. Rosa I. Rodriguez, et al., No. 12-14525 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-14525 Date Filed: 04/30/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-14525 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-23774-JAL TIMOTHY SNEED, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROSA I. RODRIGUEZ, In her individual and official capacity, ELADIA CHAVEZ, In her individual capacity, BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS STATE OF FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATION COMMISSION, In their individual and official capacities, JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (April 30, 2013) Case: 12-14525 Date Filed: 04/30/2013 Page: 2 of 3 Before MARCUS, KRAVITCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Timothy Sneed, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The District Court looked to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Sneed also appeals the denial of his motion for recusal of the magistrate judge. Briefly stated, Sneed contended that he was fraudulently convicted in his state criminal trial. The District Court properly dismissed the first two counts of the complaint under Heck, given that the counts requested monetary damages, and properly dismissed -- without prejudice -- the third count for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. The district court also correctly found that Sneed had failed to demonstrate improper bias by the magistrate: no abuse of discretion in denying Sneed s motion for recusal. Objectively viewed, the magistrate seems fully impartial. Sneed alleged no facts that indicate that the magistrate held the kind of antagonism toward him that made fair judgment impossible. For background, see 2 Case: 12-14525 Date Filed: 04/30/2013 Page: 3 of 3 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
