ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL

DAVID NUFFER, District Judge.

Defendant Neldon Johnson has filed a motion ("Motion")1 to have me disqualified from further participation in this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 and 144. Because Johnson's filings are insufficient, neither of these statutes requires my recusal, and the Motion is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Johnson argues that recusal is required because he recently filed two lawsuits naming me as a defendant.2 But "[a] judge is not disqualified merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue him."3 Thus, regardless of the number of lawsuits Johnson may choose to file against me, I am not disqualified from presiding over this case.

Johnson also argues—in conclusory fashion4—that he believes that decisions adverse to him in this case were "intended to punish" and "to destroy [him] financially."5 That is not sufficient.6 "In every lawsuit, judges make rulings adverse to one or the other party. That these rulings may be unwelcome is simply too commonplace a circumstance to support an allegation of bias."7

Johnson further argues—again in conclusory fashion—that he believes that I made statements evidencing bias against him after reviewing testimony and other evidence presented during the course of proceedings in this case.8 Judges are required to hear evidence and assess. This may lead to conclusions a litigant does not like. But even though a judge "may, upon completion of the evidence, be exceedingly ill disposed towards the defendant," "the judge is not thereby recusable for bias or prejudice, since his knowledge and the opinion it produced were properly and necessarily acquired in the course of the proceedings, and are indeed sometimes . . . necessary to completion of the judge's task."9

Because Johnson has failed to present compelling evidence of bias or prejudice, his motion for my recusal or disqualification will be denied.

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion10 is DENIED.