Opinion
CAUSE NO. 1:04-CV-427-TS.
June 4, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
The Plaintiff filed two motions on May 18, 2007, seeking the recusal of the undersigned judge. The Plaintiff has repeatedly made this request over the course of the litigation. The Plaintiff seems to think that when a district judge is reversed on appeal, the district judge must recuse herself from the proceedings on remand. This is not the case, and the Plaintiff has been told so repeatedly. "Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a basis for disqualifying a judge because rulings `are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.'" Barnett v. City of Chi., 952 F. Supp. 1265, 1269 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). The Court has been patient and accommodated the Plaintiff because he is proceeding pro se, and the Court will continue to do so. However, there is no reason for recusal, and the Plaintiff's motions (DE 63, 64) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.