From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ackbar v. Connor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Feb 6, 2019
C/A No. 4:18-3181-RMG-TER (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2019)

Opinion

C/A No. 4:18-3181-RMG-TER

02-06-2019

Supreme Raheem Ackbar, #182864, a/k/a Ronald Gary, #275886, Plaintiff, v. Patricia S. Connor, Clerk, James N. Ishida, Secretary, Richard H. Sewell, Deputy Clerk, Karen Stump, Deputy Clerk US Court of Appeals Richard M. Gergel, Thomas E. Rogers, III, Defendants.


ORDER

This is a civil action filed by a state prisoner. Therefore, in the event that a limitations issue arises, Plaintiff shall have the benefit of the holding in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner's pleading was filed at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to District Court). Under Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. MOTION TO RECUSE (ECF NO. 14)

Plaintiff does not provide, and the Court is not aware of a basis for disqualification of the undersigned that would be appropriate in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. The undersigned is "presumed to be qualified, and there must be a substantial burden upon the affiant to show grounds for believing the contrary." Nakell v. Attorney Gen. of N.C., 15 F.3d 319, 325 (4 Cir. 1994); see also U.S. v. Grismore, 564 F.2d 929, 933 (10th Cir. 1977) ("A judge is not disqualified merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue him."). Under the objective standard, a reasonable outside observer, aware of all the facts and circumstances of this case, would not question the undersigned's impartiality. See id. at 286. Plaintiff's contentions are too vague, tenuous, or speculative to establish a violation requiring recusal/disqualification. "To disqualify oneself in such circumstances would be to set the price of maintaining the purity of appearance too high —it would allow litigants to exercise a negative veto over the assignment of judges." U.S. v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 287 (4th Cir. 1998)(internal citations and quotations omitted). The Motion (ECF No. 14) is denied. PAYMENT OF FILING FEE

Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status by prior order. (ECF No. 5). By filing this case, Plaintiff has incurred a debt to the United States of America in the amount of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. This debt is not dischargeable in the event Plaintiff seeks relief under the bankruptcy provisions of the United States Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(17). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1996 permits a prisoner to file a civil action without prepayment of fees or security, but requires the prisoner "to pay the full amount of the filing fee" as funds are available. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and (b). As the court has granted Plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis, the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall collect payments from Plaintiff's prisoner trust account in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2), until the full $350 filing fee is paid. TO THE CLERK OF COURT :

Effective May 1, 2013, an administrative fee of $50 was added to the filing fee of $350. The $50 administrative fee, however, is not applicable to in forma pauperis cases. --------

This case is subject to dismissal. Therefore, the Clerk of Court shall not issue any summonses nor shall the Clerk of Court forward this matter to the United States Marshal for service of process at this time.

The Clerk of Court shall not enter any change of address submitted by Plaintiff which directs that mail be sent to a person other than Plaintiff unless that person is an attorney admitted to practice before this court who has entered a formal appearance. TO PLAINTIFF :

Plaintiff must place the civil action number listed above on any document provided to the court pursuant to this Order. Any future filings in this case must be sent to ((Post Office Box 2317, Florence, South Carolina 29503) the address below. All documents requiring Plaintiff's signature shall be signed with Plaintiff's full legal name written in Plaintiff's own handwriting. Pro se litigants shall not use the "s/typed name" format used in the Electronic Case Filing System. In all future filings with this court, Plaintiff is directed to use letter-sized (8½ inches by 11 inches) paper only, to write or type text on one side of a sheet of paper only and not to write or type on both sides of any sheet of paper. Plaintiff is further instructed not to write to the edge of the paper, but to maintain one inch margins on the top, bottom, and sides of each paper submitted.

Plaintiff is a pro se litigant. Plaintiff's attention is directed to the following important notice: You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (Post Office Box 2317, Florence, South Carolina 29503) if your address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be received by you. If as a result of your failure to comply with this Order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this court, your case may be dismissed for violating this Order. Therefore, if you have a change of address before this case is ended, you must comply with this Order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing of such change of address and providing the court with the docket number of all pending cases you have filed with this court. Your failure to do so will not be excused by the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III

Thomas E. Rogers, III

United States Magistrate Judge February 6, 2019
Florence, South Carolina


Summaries of

Ackbar v. Connor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Feb 6, 2019
C/A No. 4:18-3181-RMG-TER (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2019)
Case details for

Ackbar v. Connor

Case Details

Full title:Supreme Raheem Ackbar, #182864, a/k/a Ronald Gary, #275886, Plaintiff, v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Feb 6, 2019

Citations

C/A No. 4:18-3181-RMG-TER (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2019)