Chatham (Bell) et al v. Napolitano, No. 3:2010cv00487 - Document 38 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 36 Motion to Recuse; denying 37 Motion for Oral Hearing.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Chatham (Bell) et al v. Napolitano Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION GILA ALTMAN and CARL ALTMAN VS. JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security § § § § § § MISCELLANEOUS NO. G-10-MC-3004 (Lead Case No. G-10-cv-487) OPINION AND ORDER After thoughtful and serious consideration, the Motion to Recuse will be denied. It is unfortunate Plaintiff’s counsel feels as he does, but none of the grounds asserted stem from any extrajudicial source. Nor do they display the deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism rendering fair judgment impossible as required for disqualification. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Andrade v. Chojnacki, 228 F.3d 448, 462 (5th Cir. 2003) In summary, the prior findings and decisions were based upon evidence presented during the trials; the perceived threat of sanctions was prompted by information, even if erroneous, that counsel did not plan to personally attend the requested hearing; and the denial of a new expert, whose opinions merely bolstered the opinions of Plaintiff’s designated expert, occurred after discovery had been completed and the long-pending cases were ready for disposition. As to counsel’s July 11 letter, after reading the first sentence Dockets.Justia.com I set it aside and chose not to complete it; I only read it in full after it was attached to the Motion. It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse (Instrument no. 36) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument (Instrument no. 37) on that Motion is DENIED. DONE at Galveston, Texas, this 2nd 2 day of July, 2015.
]]>
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.
