863 F.3d 1084
8th Cir.2017Background
- Between 2010–2013 Matthew Akins repeatedly encountered Columbia, Missouri police; several resulting criminal charges were later dismissed. Akins alleges he was targeted in part because he documented police conduct through Citizens for Justice.
- In 2015 Akins sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five CPD officers, three prosecutors, the city of Columbia, and Boone County, asserting violations of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Specific incidents alleged included: an arrest at a sobriety checkpoint (May 2010); a traffic stop leading to handcuffing and vehicle search (June 2010); removal of videos from the CPD Facebook page; being ordered to stop filming in the CPD lobby; and posting of a flyer about Akins in the police department.
- Procedurally, the district court denied Akins’ recusal motions, granted dismissal for Boone County and the individual prosecutors, and granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants while denying Akins’ motion for partial summary judgment.
- Akins appealed, arguing the judge should have recused and that the court erred in granting defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and in denying his partial summary judgment motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge must transfer recusal affidavit under 28 U.S.C. § 144 | § 144 requires the judge to assign the affidavit to another judge for disposition | § 144 requires assignment to another judge only that a judge be assigned to the case; the judge may decide the recusal motion herself | The district judge did not err by ruling on the recusal motions herself |
| Whether judge should recuse on the merits | Judicial bias exists because: judge’s husband chairs a mayoral task force connected to defendant; Akins produced a critique of the judge; counsel filed prior complaint against judge; judge formerly municipal judge for Columbia | These facts, alone or combined, do not create a reasonable basis to doubt impartiality | No abuse of discretion; recusal not required |
| Whether dismissal/summary judgment for defendants was erroneous | Akins contended his § 1983 claims should survive based on alleged constitutional violations from the listed encounters/actions | Defendants argued the claims fail as a matter of law; district court applied motion-to-dismiss and summary judgment standards | Eighth Circuit reviews de novo and affirms the district court’s dismissals and grant of summary judgment to defendants |
| Whether denial of Akins’ partial summary judgment was erroneous | Akins sought partial summary judgment on asserted claims/facts | Defendants opposed; district court found issues precluded Akins’ partial judgment | Denial of Akins’ partial summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (describing recusal standard: bias or prejudice requiring disqualification)
- United States v. Larsen, 427 F.3d 1091 (recusal decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Johnson, 827 F.3d 740 (judge may decide recusal motion herself)
- Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448 (same; judge may transfer or decide recusal motion)
- Perkins v. Spivey, 911 F.2d 22 (objective test for reasonable basis to question impartiality)
- Sensley v. Albritton, 385 F.3d 591 (relative’s mere employment insufficient for recusal)
- Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 882 F.2d 1556 (family employment ties do not automatically require recusal)
- Isaacson v. Manty, 721 F.3d 533 (personal attacks on a judge do not necessarily require recusal)
- United States v. Owens, 902 F.2d 1154 (parties cannot create recusal grounds by deliberate conduct)
- Rodgers v. Knight, 781 F.3d 932 (prior rejection of similar recusal arguments against same judge)
- Letterman v. Does, 789 F.3d 856 (summary judgment standard cited)
- Gomez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 676 F.3d 655 (motion-to-dismiss standard cited)