Johnson v. Steele, No. 18-2513 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to recuse the district court judge in petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 motion for habeas relief and denial of his application for a certificate of appealability (COA) on three of his habeas corpus claims. Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing an officer and sentenced to death. In this case, petitioner concedes that the judge left the Missouri Supreme Court before his case was briefed, argued, or decided. Furthermore, in reviewing petitioner's habeas petition, the judge never had to review any of his past state court rulings.
The court concluded that a knowledgeable, reasonable person would not question the judge's impartiality as he took no part in the consideration of petitioner's state appeal. Furthermore, the judge's prior dissent in an unrelated case while a member of the Missouri Supreme Court did not require his recusal from petitioner's federal habeas case where there was no evidence of pervasive personal bias and prejudice against petitioner. Finally, the court declined to disturb the prior administrative panel's denial of petitioner's application for a COA.
Court Description: [Chief Judge Smith, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty. On appeal from the district court's denial of a motion to recuse, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to recuse. Judge's presence on the Missouri Supreme Court during the early pendency of Johnson's direct appeal, before his case was briefed, argued, and decided; judge did not have to review any past state court rulings in deciding the habeas petition; a knowledgeable, reasonable person would not question judge's impartiality. Judge's prior dissent in unrelated cases while on the state supreme court does not show evidence of pervasive personal bias and prejudice against Johnson. Prior administrative panel's denial of a certificate of appealability will not be disturbed.
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.