U.S. v. Steele, 10-20037-01-JWL. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Kansas
Number: infdco20190510a26
Visitors: 24
Filed: May 09, 2019
Latest Update: May 09, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM , District Judge . This matter is presently before the court on defendant Don Milton Steele's motion for recusal of the undersigned judge (doc. 458). In his motion, Mr. Steele asserts in conclusory fashion that the court has shown bias and prejudice during trial and in the court's rulings on prior motions "by not allowing the record to reflect and address issues presented for review." He provides no examples or specifications of this alleged bias. The m
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM , District Judge . This matter is presently before the court on defendant Don Milton Steele's motion for recusal of the undersigned judge (doc. 458). In his motion, Mr. Steele asserts in conclusory fashion that the court has shown bias and prejudice during trial and in the court's rulings on prior motions "by not allowing the record to reflect and address issues presented for review." He provides no examples or specifications of this alleged bias. The mo..
More
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, District Judge.
This matter is presently before the court on defendant Don Milton Steele's motion for recusal of the undersigned judge (doc. 458). In his motion, Mr. Steele asserts in conclusory fashion that the court has shown bias and prejudice during trial and in the court's rulings on prior motions "by not allowing the record to reflect and address issues presented for review." He provides no examples or specifications of this alleged bias. The motion is denied. It appears that Mr. Steele merely disagrees with this court's prior rulings on his motions, and adverse rulings almost never provide a basis for recusal, nor do opinions formed or expressed by a judge based upon the record, "unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Bixler v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 762 (10th Cir. 2010). Nothing the court has said or done displays any basis to conclude that fair judgment is impossible. The court is committed to treating all litigants who appear before it with impartiality and Mr. Steele is no exception.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the defendant's motion for recusal (doc. 458) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
