United States District Court, D. South Carolina
E. Rogers, III Florence, South Carolina United States
a civil action filed by a state prisoner. Therefore, in the
event that a limitations issue arises, Plaintiff shall have
the benefit of the holding in Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner's pleading was filed at the
moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to
District Court). Under Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), pretrial
proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned
United States Magistrate Judge.
signed a filing along with six others requesting an extension
of time to respond to this court's proper form order
dated September 19, 2016. Plaintiff states he has not
received back his financial statements. (ECF No. 8).
Plaintiff is granted ten days from the date
of this order, with three days for mailing, to comply with
the prior order dated September 19, 2016. Additionally,
Plaintiff is ordered to:
-file separate pleadings with only one cause number and only
one Plaintiff, himself, listed in the caption;
- write legibly and do not triplicate or write over words
already written; and
- sign his documents filed with the court and no other
persons' signatures should be present.
FOR RECUSAL OF ALL JUDGES:
filing also included a request for recusal of all judges of
the South Carolina District Court. To the extent the motion
seeks recusal of the undersigned, the motion is denied.
Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned is a defendant and
judges cannot sit on cases where named. On September 19,
2016, by order of this court, Plaintiff was informed that he
is the sole plaintiff in this cause number and he was
instructed to file service documents and a complaint form in
his own name if he desired to bring this case into proper
form. Plaintiff has yet to file his own Complaint and name
does not provide, and the Court is not aware of a basis for
disqualification of the undersigned that would be appropriate
in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. The
undersigned is “presumed to be qualified, and there
must be a substantial burden upon the affiant to show grounds
for believing the contrary.” Nakell v. Attorney
Gen. of N.C. , 15 F.3d 319, 325 (4 Cir. 1994); see
also U.S. v. Grismore, 564 F.2d 929, 933 (10th Cir.
1977) (“A judge is not disqualified merely because a
litigant sues or threatens to sue him.”).
the objective standard, a reasonable outside observer, aware
of all the facts and circumstances of this case, would not
question the undersigned's impartiality. See Id.
at 286. Plaintiff's contentions are too vague, tenuous,
or speculative to establish a violation requiring
recusal/disqualification. “To disqualify oneself in
such circumstances would be to set the price of maintaining
the purity of appearance too high -it would allow litigants
to exercise a negative veto over the assignment of
judges.” U.S. v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 287
(4th Cir. 1998)(internal citations and quotations omitted).
Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal is denied, and Plaintiff
is instructed to comply with this order and the Court's
prior order dated September 19, 2016.
case is not in proper form. If Plaintiff does not bring this
case into proper form within the time permitted by this
Order, this case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute
and failure to comply with an order of ...