Harris v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College Ex Rel. LSU Health Science Center Shreveport
409 F. App'x 725
5th Cir.2010Background
- Harris was employed at LSUHSC-S from August 2005 to December 2007.
- In May 2008, Harris, proceeding pro se, sued LSU and LSUHSC-S for sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
- LSUHSC-S moved for summary judgment asserting failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of prima facie proof.
- The district court granted summary judgment in LSUHSC-S's favor on October 20, 2009; Harris then moved for recusal of the district judge.
- The district court construed Harris’s recusal motion as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied relief, citing no appearance of partiality.
- Harris appeals the denial of recusal; the panel affirms, holding no §455(a) violation and no abuse of discretion on Rule 60(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Hicks should have been disqualified under §455(a). | Hicks’s LSU ties and trustee status created impartiality concerns. | Hicks was not a member of LSU’s Board of Supervisors and not a trustee; no appearance of partiality. | No disqualification required; no reasonable doubt about impartiality. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. | Relief warranted due to potential bias and integrity concerns. | Rule 60(b)(6) relief not warranted; extraordinary circumstances not shown. | No abuse of discretion; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc., 38 F.3d 1404 (5th Cir. 1994) (impartiality concerns and appearance of bias; standard for §455(a))
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (excoriates potential bias; framework for vacating judgments under Rule 60(b)(6))
- Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2003) (recusal and appearance of partiality; limitations on Section 455 remedies)
- Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 60(b)(6) standard requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. Unit A. 1981) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 60(b) motions)
- United States v. Herrera-Ochoa, 245 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2001) (judicial notice and authority for appellate fact-taking)