Byrd v. Janisch

Background

Houston Byrd, Jr., representing himself, filed three motions. He asked to remove Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz from the case, to dismiss the court’s order adopting Magistrate Judge Schultz’s report and recommendation, and to obtain a default judgment against Judge Karen A. Janisch.

The opinion states that the court had adopted the report and recommendation in an earlier order. Three days later, the clerk entered judgment against Byrd and attached a civil notice of appeal.

Court’s reasoning

The court denied the request for recusal, which means removal of a judge from a case. It explained that a judge is presumed to be impartial and that the party seeking recusal has a substantial burden to show a qualifying reason, such as bias, prior participation in the litigation, a financial interest, or a close personal relationship with a party. The court found no disqualifying circumstance involving Judge Nelson or Magistrate Judge Schultz.

The court also found that its order adopting the report and recommendation was properly entered.

The court rejected Byrd’s request for default judgment against Judge Karen A. Janisch because Byrd’s claim against her had already been dismissed on May 25, 2018. The opinion says that dismissal occurred because Byrd sought relief against a defendant who was immune from suit. It further states that Judge Janisch had judicial immunity because the alleged wrongful acts or omissions occurred while she was performing judicial functions.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that all three motions be denied: Byrd’s motion for recusal, his motion to dismiss the order adopting the report and recommendation, and his motion for default judgment.