UNITED STATES
v.
CRAIG
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 held that the chief judge has the inherent authority to rule on a motion to disqualify another judge, and defendants' objections to this procedure are overruled.
Defendants objected to the chief judge's authority to rule on their motion to disqualify Judge Highsmith, arguing that Title 28 U.S.C. § 455 precludes…
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 Inherent Judicial Power cases and more on FLexlaw
ROETTGER, Chief Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the court upon defendants’ objection to the order issued by the Honorable Shelby Highsmith referring their joint motion for disqualification of the court to this district’s chief judge for determination. Defendants contend the chief judge lacks authority to rule on the matter. They argue that Title 28, United States Code, Section 455 was designed to be exclusively self-enforcing and precludes transfer
*1415
of the disqualification motion to another judge for resolution. Their contention is based on the fact that Title 28, United States Code, Section 144, mandates the transfer of recusal motions but that Section 455 does not.
However, Section 455 is silent concerning procedure. It does not bar transfer of a recusal motion for determination by another judge. In fact, courts have acknowledged that the challenged judge may either opt to refer the matter to another judge for decision or rule on it himself.
See, e.g., Levitt v. University of Texas,
847 F. 2d 221, 226 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied,
488 U.S. 984, 109 S.Ct. 536, 102 L.Ed.2d 567 (1988);
United States v. Heldt,
668 F. 2d 1238, 1271 (D.C.Cir.1981),
cert. denied sub nom. Hubbard v. United States,
456 U.S. 926, 102 S.Ct. 1971, 72 L.Ed.2d 440 (1982).
In addition, it is clearly within the province of the chief judge to take jurisdiction of any matter similar to this pending motion to disqualify Judge Highsmith, particularly at the request of the district judge assigned to the case, where the underlying dispute involves which district should exercise venue over a particular case, and one in which the circuit court of appeals has become involved
1
. Furthermore, it has been the policy of this court for at least 20 years to refer such or similar motions to the chief judge for consideration.
See, e.g., Huff v. Standard Life Ins. Co.,
643 F.Supp. 705, 707 (S.D.Fla.1986);
Lozano v. Maryland Cas. Co.,
111 F.R.D. 455 (S.D.Fla.1986). The Honorable James Lawrence King handled approximately six such motions a year during his seven-year tenure as chief judge from 1984-1991 and stated at one point that he had heard three disqualification motions in one three-week interval.
Lozano,
111 F.R.D. at 459.
The undersigned finds he has the inherent authority to handle the disqualification motion at issue as there is “no express authority to the contrary, and because it is a reasonable and practical solution to the problem.”
Huff,
643 F.Supp. at 707. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendants’ objections to Judge Highsmith’s order requesting that the chief judge or his designee assume limited jurisdiction over their motion to disqualify are OVERRULED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2003)…se, to refer the matter to another judge. In the Southern District of Florida the practice is to refer such motions, if referred, to the Chief Judge. See United States v. Paan, 915 F.Supp. 376, 377 (S.D.Fla.1996); United States v. Craig, 853 F.Supp. 1413, 1415 (S.D.Fla.1994). 2 . The Court notes that, although U.S. Sugar was granted intervenor status on only a limited basis, see United States v. South Florida Water Management District, 922 F.2d 704, 710 (11th Cir.1991), once leave to i…
-
United States v. Craig, 875 F. Supp. 816 (S.D. Fla. 1994)…system. The Clerk is advised that this appears to be a category V ease; the parties’ projections at the hearing compel the conclusion this trial will likely last at least three months. DONE AND ORDERED. 1 . United States v. Craig, 853 F.Supp. 1413 (S.D.Fla. 1994). 2 . There is no overt act alleged in the indictment. 3 . For example, Judge Hoeveler tried in San Antonio a case involving a Metropolitan Dade County police officer charged as a co-defendant in the fatal beating of a…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Henning Heldt and Duke Snider, 668 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
- Levitt v. Univ. OF Tex. AT EL Paso, 847 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1988)
- Huff v. Standard Life Ins., 643 F. Supp. 705 (S.D. Fla. 1986)
- Hubbard v. United States, 456 U.S. 926 (U.S. 1982)
- Levitt v. Univ. of Tex. at El Paso, 488 U.S. 984 (U.S. 1988)