Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chisolm v. Cain

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

October 20, 2016

Clarence Chisolm, #058272 Plaintiff,
v.
Judge Timothy Cain, Judge Paige Gossett, Judge RBH in 814-cv-3555, Warden McFadden, The S.C. Supreme Court, All Defendants Listed in 016-cv-992, All Defendants Listed Within the 170 Page Complaint Dated May 18, 2016 They Blocked Being Assigned a Number, The United States, 193 Member States of the United Nations, All States and U.S. Territories That Allow Same-Sex Marriage, Judge Benjamin Lee, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Thomas E. Rogers, III Florence, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge

         This is 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.

         MOTION FOR EXTENSION

         Plaintiff 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.

         MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF ALL JUDGES:

         Plaintiff's 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 defendants.

         Plaintiff 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.”).

         Under 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).

         Thus, 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.

         TO PLAINTIFF:

         This 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.