Derock v. Boise City & Ada Cnty. Hous. Auth., Case No. 1:12-cv-00024-BLW-LMB
| Decision Date | 28 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:12-cv-00024-BLW-LMB |
| Parties | RODRICK GORDON DEROCK, Plaintiff, v. BOISE CITY and ADA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Plaintiff Rodrick DeRock's motion to disqualify the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill as the presiding judge in this matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge1 for consideration. (Dkt. 30.) Plaintiff's motion, filed on February 29, 2016, is based upon his argument that Judge Winmill is biased against him because he filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Winmill on or about May of 2014, and againon July 28, 2015.2 DeRock explains that he has protested continuously against Judge Winmill outside of the Ada County Courthouse and other government buildings with signs alleging Judge Winmill is corrupt and should be sent to prison. DeRock maintains a website posting details of his ongoing efforts related to his complaints against Judge Winmill, and contends that Judge Winmill's awareness of DeRock's actions and public protests has "created a situation in which Judge Winmill's impartiality toward [him] in this lawsuit might reasonably be questioned."
DeRock is a frequent filer in this Court. This matter arises out of ten cases3 : (1) DeRock v. Sprint-Nextel, 1:11-cv-00619-BLW-LMB; (2) DeRock v. Boise City, et al, 1:12-cv-00024-BLW-LMB; (3) DeRock v. Boise City Attorney's Office, et al, 1:12-cv-00168-BLW-LMB; (4) DeRock v. Hous. and Urban Dev., 1:12-cv-00169-BLW-LMB; (5) DeRock v. Boise City Police Dept., 1:12-cv-00176-BLW-LMB; (6) DeRock v. DeKelley, 1:12-cv-00177-BLW-LMB; (7) DeRock v. Legal Aid, 1:12-cv-00301-BLW-LMB; (8) DeRock v. Intermountain Fair Hous. Council, 1:12-cv-00305-BLW-LMB; (9) DeRock v. Idaho Depart. Of Health & Welfare, 1:12-cv-00316-BLW-LMB; and (10) DeRock v. Living Independence Network Corp., 1:12-cv-00339-BLW-LMB.
On July 20, 2012, District Judge B. Lynn Winmill consolidated all ten cases for ease of administration, and directed that anything further filed in any of the cases would be filed under the lead case, DeRock v. Sprint-Nextel, 1:11-cv-00619-BLW-LMB. In thelawsuits, DeRock alleged a conspiracy centered upon an ongoing dispute he had regarding an increase of $64 in rent at his place of residence. The common theme running throughout all ten cases was an alleged conspiracy by the defendants named in each action to have him evicted or unlawfully increase his rent.
On August 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle issued a report and recommendation that all ten of DeRock's complaints be dismissed with prejudice, and that a vexatious litigant order be entered. On September 26, 2012, Judge Winmill adopted the report and recommendation, dismissed all ten cases, denied DeRock's requests to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered DeRock to obtain approval of the Court before filing any new complaints. (Case No. 1:11-cv-00619 Dkt. 15.)
DeRock sought again to file eleven complaints, all of which were identical to the previous ten complaints, with the addition of a motion to disqualify Judge Winmill. (See Case No. 1:11-cv-00619-BLW-LMB). The Court denied DeRock permission to file the complaints on June 22, 2014, which order DeRock appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Winmill's order denying DeRock in forma pauperis status on the grounds that the additional eleven complaints were frivolous. Included in its order, the Ninth Circuit stated also that it rejected, as lacking any factual basis, DeRock's conclusory contentions that the district judge was covering up crimes being committed against DeRock by denying him permission to file the additional eleven related actions. (Mem. of USCA, September 4, 2014, Case No. 1:11-cv-00619-BLW-LMB (Dkt. 35.)).
Meanwhile, DeRock appealed the order by Judge Winmill entered on September 26, 2012, which dismissed the first ten complaints. The Ninth Circuit issued a written decision on March 12, 2015, regarding the September 26, 2012 Order, affirming dismissal of nine of the ten cases, and in case number 1:12-cv-0024, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the matter to the Court. The Ninth Circuit found that the Court properly dismissed nine of the ten actions as either frivolous or for failure to state a claim, because DeRock made unsupported legal conclusions and fanciful allegations in those complaints. The Ninth Circuit further found that the Court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend in all of these actions on the grounds of futility, other than in DeRock v. Boise City, 1:12-cv-0024-BLW-LMB.
The appellate court explained that leave to amend DeRock's disability discrimination claims (but not his conspiracy claims) against the City of Boise should have been granted because amendment was not necessarily futile. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded Case No. 1:12-cv-0024-BLW-LMB as to DeRock's disability discrimination action against defendant Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority. The Ninth Circuit addressed also the Court's pre-filing restriction, as it was not narrowly tailored to DeRock's vexatious filing of lawsuits regarding his rental dispute and re-litigation of previously dismissed claims.4 The court further rejected DeRock's contentions concerning Judge Winmill's alleged involvement in a cover-up or conspiracy against him.
Upon remand of Case No. 1:12-cv-0024-BLW-LMB and reopening of the same, the Court on April 16, 2015, issued an order allowing DeRock to file an amended complaint against the Boise City/Ada County Housing Authority for failure to accommodate his disability, and set forth the standard to follow under various, potentially applicable, statutory authorities. (Dkt. 23.) The Court granted DeRock's in forma pauperis request and his request for counsel. The Court also directed the Clerk to attempt to find pro bono counsel for DeRock, and ordered DeRock to file an amended complaint within 60 days.
On January 11, 2016, attorney Joseph Aldridge filed a notice of appearance on behalf of DeRock. (Dkt. 26.) Mr. Aldridge next filed the instant motion to disqualify Judge Winmill on February 29, 2016. (Dkt. 29.) DeRock filed his amended complaint on March 8, 2016, (Dkt. 31), and Defendants, upon receipt of the summons and complaint, filed a waiver of service. (Dkt. 33.)
In the judicial misconduct complaint filed against Judge Winmill in Case No. 1:15-cv-00291-CWD, DeRock sought in forma pauperis status to proceed with his lawsuit against Judge Winmill for covering up a conspiracy against his rights based upon the Ninth Circuit's remand of this matter, Case No. 1:12-0024-BLW-LMB. Within his complaint, DeRock re-asserted the claims previously asserted in the ten cases consolidated under Case No. 1:12-cv-00619 regarding his rent dispute.
In a memorandum decision and order issued on August 10, 2015,5 the undersigned dismissed DeRock's complaint against Judge Winmill with prejudice and without leave to amend on the ground that the doctrine of absolute immunity barred DeRock's conspiracy claims asserted against Judge Winmill.
Now, it appears DeRock has taken an end run, seeking to disqualify Judge Winmill in the instant lawsuit, contending that Judge Winmill is prejudiced or biased against him because of DeRock's protest activities, including the filing of the two judicial misconduct cases against Judge Winmill.
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) requires any judge or magistrate judge of the United States to disqualify him or herself in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Recusal whenever a judge has a "personal bias or prejudice concerning a party" is required also by 28 U.S.C. § 144. DeRock questions Judge Winmill's impartiality on the basis of DeRock's protest activities, predominantly upon his allegations that Judge Winmill perpetrated a conspiracy by dismissing the ten consolidated lawsuits that resulted in the remand of this matter to the Court. DeRock essentially does not like the ruling issued by Judge Winmill dismissing the lawsuits, which ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in all but this matter, which was remanded. The matter has been reopened, Judge Winmill issued anorder granting DeRock's request for appointment of pro bono counsel,6 and counsel has been appointed.
DeRock generally argues that, because of his vociferous displeasure directed at Judge Winmill's prior rulings, which in some manner illustrate the existence of a conspiracy against DeRock, Judge Winmill should recuse himself from this case. DeRock argues also that Judge Winmill is aware of DeRock's ongoing public protests and criticism levied against Judge Winmill. DeRock therefore questions his ability to obtain a fair trial before this tribunal, implicating due process guarantees.
While it is true that due process guarantees a party the right to an impartial forum, this maxim does not give a party the judge of his choice. The standard in determining whether a particular judge is impartial or that his appearance of impartiality cannot be questioned is clear, and it is not applied from the point of view of the parties. Therefore, the fears of the parties are irrelevant. State of Idaho v. Freeman, 507 F.Supp. 706, 730 (D. Idaho 1981). Only when a disinterested observer, knowing all the facts, would determine that a judge's appearance of partiality could reasonably be questioned, should a judge disqualify himself under section 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
Upon examining the background of this matter, the Court finds no reasonable grounds for...
To continue reading
Request your trial