Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Quigley v. City of Huntington

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division

January 30, 2018

HARRY LAWRENCE QUIGLEY Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge

         On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his Motion to Disqualify District Judge Robert C. Chambers and Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn.[1] [ECF No. 58] Plaintiff appears to assert that the undersigned is a “co-conspirator” with District Judge Chambers and United States Magistrate Judge Eifert insofar as his being assigned to this civil matter due to the conflict that arose once Steven K. Nord, Esq., Ryan Q. Ashworth, Esq., and the law firm of Offutt Nord Burchett, PLLC filed their Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Defendants. [See, ECF Nos. 39 and 40] Plaintiff only asserts conclusory statements that the undersigned is unable to be neutral and un-biased without any specific allegations that would support same, other than Plaintiff has since been served with discovery requests by the Defendants.

         As Judge Chambers noted in his Order denying the motion to disqualify him [ECF No. 59], the relevant Code of Judicial Conduct applicable to the undersigned is Canon 3(C), which provides, in its entirety, as follows:

         (C) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;
(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse or minor child residing in the judge's household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d) the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
(iv) to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;
(e) the judge has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed an opinion ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.