Valencia v. Livingston, No. 9:2013cv00043 - Document 105 (E.D. Tex. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECUSE MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Plaintiff's Motions to Recuse 83 , 98 & 99 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 2/17/15. (ljw, )

Download PDF
Valencia v. Livingston Doc. 105 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION YSIDRO VALENCIA § VS. § BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al., § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:13-CV-43 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECUSE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Came on for consideration, Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse. See docket entry nos. 83, 98 & 99. The complaint in this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff, Ysidro Valencia, a state prisoner currently confined at the Gib Lewis Unit with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Analysis Plaintiff seeks recusal of United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin. Plaintiff cites no authority to request the recusal and does not include an affidavit. The Court will treat the motion simply as one for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. The main thrust of plaintiff’s motions to recuse is plaintiff disagrees with the rulings entered thus far by the United States Magistrate Judge Keith Giblin. He also complains of the timeliness of various rulings. “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Where the grounds for recusal arise solely in the course of the judicial proceedings, judicial rulings will.only “in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required.” Id. Plaintiff has not shown any favoritism or antagonism on the part of the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case. Plaintiff merely disagrees with the specific rulings by the court on motions and routine case management matters. It is, therefore, ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motions to Recuse (docket entry nos. 83, 98 & (99) are DENIED. SIGNED this 17th day of February, 2015. ____________________________________ MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.