Amelio v. Houri

Background

The three plaintiffs are Carmine P. Amelio, Alfonso Amelio, and Paul Amelio. They moved under 28 U.S.C. § 455 to have Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger removed from the case. They argued that Judge Lehrburger showed bias and prejudice by denying their request for a second two-week extension to file a motion for reconsideration and by referring to that request as “vexatious” and unnecessary.

Legal standard

The court applied an objective standard: whether a reasonable, disinterested observer who knew the relevant facts and circumstances could question the judge’s impartiality. It explained that recusal, meaning removal of a judge from a case, is generally not warranted based only on judicial rulings, routine case-management decisions, or ordinary admonishments made during court proceedings. Recusal may be required if the judge shows personal bias or such deep hostility that fair judgment would be impossible.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Judge Lehrburger’s denial of the second extension request was a standard judicial ruling and was reasonable for the reasons given in an earlier docket entry. The court stated that magistrate judges have broad discretion over scheduling and other disputes that do not determine the ultimate claims. It found no evidence that the denial was based on personal bias or prejudice and concluded that Judge Lehrburger had not abused his discretion.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument based on the word “vexatious.” It emphasized that, based on the submitted materials, Judge Lehrburger had characterized the plaintiffs’ filings as “vexatious,” not the plaintiffs themselves. The court treated the statement as an ordinary admonishment rather than evidence of personal bias. It also rejected the arguments that the statement showed disregard for the Americans with Disabilities Act or improper reliance on the plaintiffs’ status as people representing themselves.

Finally, the court rejected the argument that Judge Lehrburger improperly relied on information from outside the case by noting that a court had labeled at least one plaintiff “vexatious” in other litigation. The court stated that recognizing another court’s characterization of a litigant or filings did not itself show reliance on improper outside knowledge.

Disposition

Judge Ho denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Recusal. The order states that the Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger remains in effect. It also directs the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 123, the docket entry identified as that order of reference.