Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 0:2018cv03070 - Document 82 (D.S.C. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 10 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 10/21/2019.(bshr, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 82 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Eric Alan Sanders, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Commissioner of Social Security ) Administration, Social Security ) Administrative Record, Interested Party, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 0:18-cv-03070-JMC ORDER AND OPINION The matter before the court is pro se Plaintiff Eric Alan Sanders’ Motion for Recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff alleges that the court has acted with discriminatory animus towards him, which mandates a recusal of the undersigned judge. For the reasons stated below, the court DENIES plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (ECF No. 10). Under Section 455(a), a federal judge must “disqualify [herself] in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Recusal is unwarranted when an allegation of impartiality is “unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation” or because the presiding judge “possesses some tangential relationship to the proceedings.” United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 287 (4th Cir. 1998)). Section 455(b) further provides specific circumstances where recusal is mandated, including “[w]here [she] has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1); Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 567 (1994). A party must provide compelling evidence to show bias or prejudice stemming from “an extra judicial source . . . other than what the judge learned from [her] participation in the case.” United States v. Grinnel Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966); See also Brokaw v. Mercer Cty., 235 F.3d 1000, 1025 (7th Cir. 2000). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff preemptively “objects to the [c]ourt accepting the recommendation of the Magistrate [Judge] in Proper Form Order 7 [ECF No. 7] because the Magistrate [Judge] and District Judge should recuse themselves.” (ECF No. 10 at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the undersigned judge has “previously displayed discriminatory animus towards [his] mental disabilities and refused to accommodate his disabilities in proceedings before this [c]ourt.” (Id. at 3.) For example, Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned judge “demonstrated an unreasonable refusal, despite the undisputed medical evidence and documentation on the record, to accept the severity or existence of [his] various mental disabilities . . . [by] us[ing] the words ‘alleged’ and ‘allegedly’ in their dictum . . .” (Id. at 4.) Consequently, according to Plaintiff, “past rulings . . . concerning the same or similar material facts demonstrate [the undersigned judge’s] inability to put aside bias and prejudice concerning [his] allegations of mental illness . . . .” (Id. at 5.) The court finds that Plaintiff has failed to present any extrajudicial sources of bias or prejudice to support this motion and that he simply disagrees with the court’s unfavorable rulings. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[W]hile recusal motions serve as an important safeguard against truly egregious conduct, they cannot become a form of brushback pitch for litigants to hurl at judges who do not rule in their favor.”) Therefore, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (ECF No. 10). IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge October 21, 2019 Columbia, South Carolina 2
]]>
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.
