Opinion
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00243-MP-AK.
December 9, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 7, Plaintiffs' second motion for recusal. On December 4, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiffs' first motion for recusal, Doc. 5, noting that Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts that would raise a significant doubt about the undersigned's impartiality. See Doc. 6. Plaintiffs have now filed this second motion for recusal, which is styled as an "amended motion for recusal." Plaintiffs previously filed a motion for recusal in Case No. 1:07-cv-00225-MP-AK at Doc. 85, which was denied at Doc. 86, and Mr. Johnson has filed a motion for recusal in Case No. 1:08-cv-00038-MP-AK at Doc. 26, which is still pending and will be denied by a separate order to be filed in that case.
All of these motions for recusal contain conclusory allegations that the undersigned is biased against Plaintiffs or that previous decisions by this Court amounted to a violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights. As this Court has previously noted, the test in the Eleventh Circuit for determining whether a judge should recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455 "is whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal [is] sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality." McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990). "[A] judge's rulings in the same or a related case may not serve as the basis for a recusal motion. The judge's bias must be personal and extrajudicial; it must derive from something other than that which the judge learned by participating in the case."Id. I know of no facts that would lead an objective observer to entertain a significant doubt about my impartiality in this case. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Plaintiffs' motion for recusal, Doc. 7, is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.