Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:03-CV-0387-P
June 26, 2003
ORDER
Now before the Court is:
1) Plaintiff's Petition in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Quo Warranty Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 81(a)(2), and Complaint Under Authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2672, filed February 24, 2003, which the Court will consider as a Motion to Remove Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater,
2) Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge Jorge A. Solis for Violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges filed May 9, 2003,
3) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge Jorge Solis, filed May 29, 2003, and
4) Plaintiff's Objection to and Motion to Strike Marc D. Katz's "Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge Solis" which the Court will consider as Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response, filed June 6, 2003.
After full consideration of the Parties' briefing and the applicable law, for the reasons discussed herein, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remove Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge Jorge A. Solis.
BACKGROUND
On December 27, 2002, Plaintiff filed his claim against Defendant, and his case was randomly assigned to Judge Fitzwater, with case number 3:02-CV-2775-D. On February 3, 2003, Judge Fitzwater dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. On February 24, 2003, Plaintiff refiled his complaint against Defendant and the case was randomly assigned to Judge Solis.
On February 24, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Petition in the Nature of a Petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 81(a)(2), and Complaint Under Authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2672, alleging that District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater was dishonest, incompetent, and that Judge Fitzwater failed to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as well as violated the Code of Conduct for United Stated Judges. On May 9, 2003, Plaintiff filed Motion to Disqualify Judge Jorge A. Solis for Violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges for failure to initiate appropriate action for the removal of Fitzwater.
DISCUSSION
I. Judge Fitzwater
Plaintiff moves the Court to removal Judge Fitzwater. Federal Judges are appointed for life, and can only be removed through impeachment by the United States Congress. United States Constitution, Article m, § 1; U.S. ex. Rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 16 (1955). The purpose of this guarantee is to insulate "The individual judge from improper influences not only by other branches but by colleagues as well . . . " Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 U.S. 50, 59, n. 10 (1982). Thus, it is clear that the proper method for removal of a Federal Judge is not through a motion, as Plaintiff attempts to do, but through impeachment, and may only be initiated by Congress. Plaintiff's motion states, inter alia, that Judge Fitzwater is incompetent because he dismissed Plaintiff's case for want of jurisdiction. If Plaintiff is unhappy with Judge Fitzwater's ruling, Plaintiff should, if he desires, take appropriate steps to appeal the decision. Filing a motion for Judge Fitzwater's removal is not the appropriate method of appealing Judge Fitzwater's ruling. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Removal of Judge Fitzwater is DENIED.
II. Judge Soils
A trial Judge should be disqualified only if his impartiality might be reasonably questioned, or of he has or had a specific level of personal involvement in the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 455; IQ Prods. Co. v. Pennzoil Prods. Co., 305 F.3d 368, 377 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1632 (2003). Plaintiff seeks to have Judge Solis disqualified because he did not remove Judge Fitzwater from the bench. However, as stated above, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any grounds upon which Judge Fitzwater should or could be removed from the bench. Even if Plaintiff had provided sufficient grounds, neither Plaintiff nor Judge Solis has standing to institute any impeachment proceedings with respect to Judge Fitzwater. Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for which Judge Solis should be disqualified, as Judge Solis' decision to not take action toward the removal of Judge Fitzwater cannot be ground for disqualification. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge Jorge A. Solis for Violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
CONCLUSION
After full consideration of the Parties' briefing and the applicable law, for the reasons stated above, the Court hereby Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remove Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge Jorge A. Solis.