Rodgers v. McDaniel, 3:17-cv-291-DPM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180418768
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . I've been studying the filings in this case to make a decision on the pending motions to dismiss. I've learned that Judge Brandon J. Harrison was part of the three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court of Appeals that decided the case about terminating Rodgers's parental rights. N o 7 at 2-5 & N o 29 at 41-53. Rodgers has not sued Judge Harrison. But the core of her case in this Court is that the dependency-neglect proceedings were wrongfu
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . I've been studying the filings in this case to make a decision on the pending motions to dismiss. I've learned that Judge Brandon J. Harrison was part of the three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court of Appeals that decided the case about terminating Rodgers's parental rights. N o 7 at 2-5 & N o 29 at 41-53. Rodgers has not sued Judge Harrison. But the core of her case in this Court is that the dependency-neglect proceedings were wrongful..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
I've been studying the filings in this case to make a decision on the pending motions to dismiss. I've learned that Judge Brandon J. Harrison was part of the three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court of Appeals that decided the case about terminating Rodgers's parental rights. No 7 at 2-5 & No 29 at 41-53. Rodgers has not sued Judge Harrison. But the core of her case in this Court is that the dependency-neglect proceedings were wrongfully handled. The Court of Appeals, speaking through Judge Harrison, affirmed the termination of her parental rights. And Rodgers says that the presence of the Court of Appeals' decision on-line is one of the ways in which she has been defamed and harmed. No 7 at 1. Judge Harrison and I have been close friends for many years. He's on my recusal list. In these circumstances, my impartiality in addressing Rodgers's claims on the merits could reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). I therefore recuse. The Clerk must reassign this case at random by chip exchange.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
