HASTINGS
v.
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (LEE COUNTY)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the petitioner's motions for summary judgment and recusal, finding them procedurally inappropriate and without merit.
Petitioner, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, filed motions for summary judgment and to recuse the judge. The judge had a past social acquaintance with…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Recuse Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
Respondent. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court are two motions filed by Petitioner David Scott Hastings. First, he moves for summary judgment. (Doc. 10). Second, he moves to recuse the undersigned. (Doc. 14). For reasons that follow, both motions are denied. Hastings seeks a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254. (Doc. 1). The Court ordered the Respondent Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections to respond to the Petition. (Doc. 4). Respondent responded (Doc. 8), and Hastings replied (Doc. 9).
Hastings has moved for recusal. In Hastings v. City Fort Myers et al., No. 2:18- cv-00081-SPC-MRM, the Court denied Hastings’ motion to recuse. Hastings now contests the propriety of the undersigned ruling on his petition. He again points out the undersigned and her family once were social acquaintances of
Hastings and his family. And he is unhappy that the undersigned wrote in a previous order, “Not mentioned in Hastings’ complaint is his lengthy criminal history in Lee County, Florida.” He insists this comment casts doubt on the undersigned’s impartiality.
Section 455 provides two bases for recusal. First, a judge must recuse herself when her “impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Second, a judge must disqualify herself when she “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Any contact the undersigned and her family had with Hastings and his family was fleeting and years removed from this proceeding. And the interaction was unrelated to the issues involved in Hastings’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Hastings also fails to show the recent comment calls into question the undersigned’s impartiality. This short comment only pointed out that Hastings failed to present a complete and accurate summary of his criminal proceedings. There is no reason the undersigned cannot impartially evaluate whether his custody violates the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Hastings’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 10) is DENIED. 2. Hastings’ motion to recuse the undersigned (Doc. 14) is DENIED. 3. Hastings’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is TAKEN
UNDER ADVISEMENT.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 16, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record