Kevin Johnson v. Troy Steele, 999 F.3d 584

Kevin Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder in Missouri and sentenced to death; the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.
Johnson filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising 26 claims and sought recusal of District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
Johnson’s recusal motion alleged (1) Limbaugh was on the Missouri Supreme Court when Johnson filed his notice of direct appeal, and (2) Limbaugh authored dissents in unrelated McFadden death‑penalty cases that showed prejudice on Batson issues affecting Johnson’s case.
Judge Limbaugh denied recusal, stating he had no substantive participation in Johnson’s state appeal and that prior judicial opinions alone do not establish bias; the district court later denied habeas relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
An administrative panel of the Eighth Circuit denied a COA; Johnson asked the merits panel to reconsider recusal and to grant a COA on three claims.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of recusal and declined to grant a COA, concluding Limbaugh’s limited prior connection and his McFadden dissents did not demonstrate disqualifying bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Limbaugh must recuse for mere presence on the Missouri Supreme Court when Johnson filed his notice of appeal	Johnson: Limbaugh’s presence on the state court while the appeal was pending creates an appearance of bias	Limbaugh: He left the Court before briefing, argument, or decision and had no substantive participation	Held: No recusal; mere early presence without participation does not create reasonable doubt about impartiality
Whether Limbaugh’s prior McFadden dissents required recusal for alleged pre‑judgment on Batson issues	Johnson: Dissents in McFadden (same county; Batson issue) show prejudgment and bias	Limbaugh/Gov’t: Judicial rulings/dissents alone generally do not establish bias; dissents reflected case‑specific reasoning	Held: No recusal; dissents do not show pervasive personal bias or prejudice
Whether a COA should be granted on three habeas claims	Johnson: Merits panel can grant COA and claims warrant review	Government: Administrative denial should stand; merits panel need not disturb it	Held: COA denied; Eighth Circuit declined to disturb administrative panel’s denial

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for recusal)
Tyler v. Purkett, 413 F.3d 696 (8th Cir.) (prior service on Missouri appellate court at transfer stage did not require recusal)
Russell v. Lane, 890 F.2d 947 (7th Cir.) (judge should not sit on appeal of his own decisions)
Rice v. McKenzie, 581 F.2d 1114 (4th Cir.) (federal habeas judge acts in an appellate capacity reviewing state proceedings)
Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir.) (recusal requires more than unfavorable rulings; need pervasive personal bias)
United States v. Delorme, 964 F.3d 678 (8th Cir.) (heavy burden on party seeking recusal; review for abuse of discretion)
State v. McFadden, 191 S.W.3d 648 (Mo. 2006) (McFadden I) (Limbaugh dissent on Batson analysis)
State v. McFadden, 216 S.W.3d 673 (Mo. 2007) (McFadden II) (Limbaugh dissent applying totality‑of‑circumstances Batson review)
State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. 2009) (underlying state conviction and sentence affirmed)