GARD v. DOOLEY, 4:14-CV-04023-LLP. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. South Dakota
Number: infdco20150630h48
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL VERONICA L. DUFFY , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on plaintiff Rex Gard's pro se complaint. Mr. Gard now moves this court to recuse itself on the grounds that the court previously recused itself in Gard v. Weber, Civ. No. 10-5017. Mr. Gard's prior lawsuit in Civ. No. 10-5017 was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In that petition, Mr. Gard was seeking a writ of habeas corpus in federal court on the grounds that his state court
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL VERONICA L. DUFFY , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on plaintiff Rex Gard's pro se complaint. Mr. Gard now moves this court to recuse itself on the grounds that the court previously recused itself in Gard v. Weber, Civ. No. 10-5017. Mr. Gard's prior lawsuit in Civ. No. 10-5017 was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In that petition, Mr. Gard was seeking a writ of habeas corpus in federal court on the grounds that his state court c..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL
VERONICA L. DUFFY, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on plaintiff Rex Gard's pro se complaint. Mr. Gard now moves this court to recuse itself on the grounds that the court previously recused itself in Gard v. Weber, Civ. No. 10-5017.
Mr. Gard's prior lawsuit in Civ. No. 10-5017 was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In that petition, Mr. Gard was seeking a writ of habeas corpus in federal court on the grounds that his state court criminal conviction had violated his constitutional rights. This court recused itself in that matter because the court had knowledge of some facts regarding Mr. Gard's underlying state criminal case. The recusal was based on knowledge of the facts of the claim rather than anything personal to Mr. Gard himself.
Mr. Gard's other cases now pending in federal court do not involve the facts of his underlying conviction in state court. Rather, these pending matters involve allegations regarding the current circumstances of Mr. Gard's confinement in state prison. This court has no prior knowledge of those prison conditions. Hence the reason which existed for this court's prior recusal from Mr. Gard's habeas case does not exist in his present pending cases. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Mr. Gard's motion to recuse is denied.
Source: Leagle
