Reported / Citable
Background
Marcus Dale Smallwood, proceeding pro se, asked to remove the magistrate judge assigned to his civil case. He asserted a conflict because the same magistrate judge had recommended denial of his suppression motion in his related criminal prosecution.
Smallwood did not file an affidavit supporting his recusal request. He also sought leave to amend his civil complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Smallwood’s request to remove the magistrate judge. He did not meet the requirements for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455, including the affidavit requirement under § 144.
The magistrate judge’s prior recommendation that the criminal suppression motion be denied did not establish personal bias or a reasonable basis to question impartiality. Mere disagreement with a judicial ruling ordinarily does not justify recusal, and the district court had adopted the recommendation in the criminal case.
The court granted leave to amend. Smallwood has 30 days to file a first amended complaint, which will replace the prior complaint in full; failure to comply may result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
Key Takeaways
- A recusal request must identify particular facts showing personal, rather than judicial, bias.
- A magistrate judge’s prior ruling or recommendation against a party does not by itself warrant disqualification.
- An amended complaint supersedes the original and must include all claims the plaintiff intends to pursue.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces the high bar for recusal based on prior judicial work involving the same litigant. Adverse rulings, without evidence of personal prejudice or another statutory ground for disqualification, do not establish a conflict of interest.