Balistreri-Amrhein v. Verrilli, Jr., 4:16-cv-00112

Background

Pro se plaintiffs Darlene C. Amrhein and (deceased) Anthony J. Balistreri sued multiple federal and state defendants; Anthony was previously dismissed because he predeceased the suit and Darlene lacked authority to proceed for him.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Recuse judges Mazzant and Magistrate Nowak under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and various Texas recusal provisions; the Court treated the motion under federal law.
Plaintiffs advanced four core recusal theories: (1) the court delayed/service withholding of the Third Amended Complaint pending § 1915 screening; (2) the court previously warned Darlene about repeated frivolous filings; (3) adverse rulings in unrelated matters (including dismissal of a suit involving Texas AG Paxton) show favoritism; and (4) unspecified allegations of favoritism toward certain defendants.
The court explained that withholding issuance of service while conducting screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is standard practice and permitted by Rule 4(m) tolling jurisprudence.
The court explained that judicial rulings and an admonition about frivolous filings are not "extrajudicial" sources of bias and therefore generally do not warrant recusal unless they show deep-seated antagonism or favoritism.
The Court concluded plaintiffs had not met the heavy burden to show that an objective, well-informed observer would reasonably question the judges’ impartiality and denied the recusal motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal judges should recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455	Amrhein argued the judges’ impartiality is questionable due to withholding service, prior warning, and alleged favoritism	Court applied § 455, arguing plaintiffs bore a heavy burden and must show an objective appearance of partiality	Denied — plaintiffs failed to show reasonable appearance of partiality
Whether withholding service pending § 1915 screening creates cause for recusal	Plaintiffs contended withholding issuance of process on the Third Amended Complaint was improper and evidence of bias	Court noted Rule 4(m) tolling and common practice to withhold service while screening in forma pauperis complaints	Denied — withholding service for § 1915 screening is permissible and not a basis for recusal
Whether judicial admonitions about frivolous filings constitute bias	Plaintiffs asserted the court’s warning to Darlene about repeated filings proved bias	Court relied on Liteky: judicial rulings and remarks based on case facts are not extrajudicial and almost never suffice for recusal absent deep-seated antagonism	Denied — admonition was a proper judicial remark, not evidence of disqualifying bias
Whether adverse rulings in other cases (e.g., dismissal involving AG Paxton) show favoritism	Plaintiffs inferred a relationship/favoritism from prior rulings dismissing cases involving Paxton	Court held that inferences from prior judicial decisions are insufficient to show partiality without other facts	Denied — prior rulings do not establish appearance of impropriety

Key Cases Cited

Garcia v. City of Laredo, 702 F.3d 788 (5th Cir.) (recusal motion standard and discretion of presiding judge)
Sensley v. Albritton, 385 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 2004) (discretion and standards for recusal)
Chitimacha Tribe v. Harry L. Laws Co., 690 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir. 1982) (recusal inquiry and discretion)
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913 (2004) (recusal viewed from perspective of reasonable, informed observer)
United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152 (5th Cir.) (appearance standard: well-informed, objective observer)
Republic of Panama v. Am. Tobacco Co., Inc., 217 F.3d 343 (5th Cir.) (recusal inquiry is fact-intensive and demands close factual recitation)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings and remarks generally are not a basis for bias/partiality motions)
Bremers v. United States, 195 F.3d 221 (5th Cir.) (similar-situation precedent requires independent factual analysis)