Fowler v. US
Citation | 699 F. Supp. 925 |
Decision Date | 17 November 1988 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 87-35-VAL (WDO). |
Parties | E.L. FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
L. Andrew Smith, Valdosta, Ga., for plaintiff.
Michael J. King, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
Plaintiff E.L. Fowler on July 6, 1987, commenced this civil action against the United States seeking a refund of $7,158.62 of income taxes illegally and erroneously collected through the seizure and sale of his properties. Since all civil and criminal cases in the Valdosta Division are and for years have been this judge's responsibility and since Mr. Fowler's attorney practices law in Valdosta and has represented Mr. Fowler in prior cases presided over by this judge, Mr. Fowler's attorney, when he filed this complaint, must have known that it would be assigned to this judge. If for some reason he did not, he certainly did when he received a copy of this judge's order of October 7, 1987.
By letter dated September 1, 1988—more than one year after this civil action commenced —Mr. Fowler's attorney wrote this judge:
In response, Mr. Fowler's attorney was invited by letter dated September 7, 1988, to "file a motion in the required manner."
On October 4, 1988, Mr. Fowler's attorney filed a motion for disqualification and recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 supported by Mr. Fowler's affidavit, in which Mr. Fowler contends that he filed a lawsuit against this judge alleging that he conspired with others to deprive Mr. Fowler of his constitutional rights and sought damages from him personally. He further states that this judge, of his own initiative, has recused himself from other E.L. Fowler lawsuits. In addition, Mr. Fowler states that in his last lawsuit this judge demonstrated his personal bias and prejudice by serving his attorney with a Rule 11 show cause order and requiring Mr. Fowler and his lawyer to be present for a hearing. He says all of the above demonstrates that this judge has a personal bias and prejudice against him.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 144 provides:
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) states:
Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Looking first at 28 U.S.C. § 144, note that it states "whenever a party ... makes and files a timely ... affidavit ..." and that it further states "the affidavit ... shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term ... or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time."
Neither Mr. Fowler nor his attorney have made an effort to show good cause for this motion being filed more than one year after it was commenced. Neither Mr. Fowler nor his attorney even discussed the question of timeliness, in spite of the fact that Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana v. Harry L. Laws Co., 690 F.2d 1157, 1164 n. 3 (5th Cir.1982).
Attached are copies of criminal and civil case docket sheets in which Mr. Fowler has been a party, to wit:
(1) Criminal 78-4 Valdosta — United States v. E.L. Fowler, presided over by Judge J. Robert Elliott. Charge of five counts of willfully and knowingly failing to file income tax returns1. Convicted and sentenced to serve 3 years and pay $4,000 fine.
(2) Civil 81-20 Valdosta — E.L. Fowler v. J. Robert Elliott and Richard Nettum (Asst. U.S. Attorney in Cr. 78-4 Valdosta) alleging violation of civil rights. Assigned to Judge Owens and dismissed by his order.
(3) Civil 82-9 Valdosta — E.L. Fowler v. Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., J. Robert Elliott, and Richard Nettum alleging civil rights violations. Assigned to Circuit Judge R. Lanier Anderson, III and by his order dismissed.
(4) Civil 82-28 Valdosta — E.L. Fowler v. W.J. Forehand (state judge) and Rob Reinhardt (a lawyer) seeking damages. Assigned to Judge Owens and by him dismissed.
(5) Civil 82-45 Valdosta — E.L. Fowler v. W.J. Forehand, Rob Reinhardt and Wilbur D. Owens, Jr. Allowed to proceed only as to defendants Forehand and Reinhardt. Assigned to Judge Owens and by him dismissed.
(6) Civil 82-78 Valdosta — E.L. Fowler v. R. Lanier Anderson, III, Wilbur D. Owens, Jr., J. Robert Elliott and Richard Nettum alleging civil rights violations. Assigned to Judge Anthony Alaimo and by him dismissed. Injunction issued.
(7) Civil 83-81 Valdosta — E.L. Fowler v. Anthony Alaimo and Gregory J. Leonard (clerk of this court) alleging civil rights violations. Assigned to Judge Owens. Dismissed by stipulation.
(8) Civil 83-112 Valdosta — E.L. Fowler v. T.J. Casteel and W.C. Panter (revenue agents) for civil rights violations. Assigned to Judge Owens. Voluntarily dismissed.
(9) Civil 83-120 Valdosta — United States v. Elmer L. Fowler for tax levy. Assigned to Judge Owens who signed order for entry to effect levy.
(10) Civil 85-37 Valdosta — United States v. Elmer L. Fowler for dispossession. Mr. Fowler was represented by Leamon Andrew Smith, his lawyer in this case.
(11) Civil 85-40 Valdosta — United States v. Elmer L. Fowler for dispossession.
Civil 85-37 Valdosta, 85-40 Valdosta, 85-29 Valdosta and 85-102 Macon were consolidated and dismissed by Judge Alaimo.
(12) Civil 86-16 Valdosta — E.L. Fowler and Jessie Mae Fowler v. T.J. Casteel, indiv. and as IRS Agent; Jack Gregory, indiv. and Officer of Gregory Monument Company; Gregory Monument Company; and United States of America seeking nine million dollars damages in connection with a tax matter. Mr. Fowler was represented by Leamon Andrew Smith, his present lawyer, and by Robert L. Cork. Assigned to Judge Owens who issued Rule 11 show cause. After hearing, plaintiffs moved to dismiss and their motion was granted.
(13) The subject lawsuit, Civil 87-35 Valdosta —E.L. Fowler v. United States seeking refund of income taxes collected by seizure and sale. Mr. Fowler is again represented by L. Andrew Smith.
Mr. Fowler's affidavit is conclusory in nature and as a source of conclusory bias and prejudice relies upon said prior litigation. In addition to the various criminal and civil actions brought against Mr. Fowler by the United States and presided over by this judge, the above-described litigation includes several attempts by Mr. Fowler to sue this judge for his official conduct in the actions brought by the United States.
Mr. Smith, having represented Mr. Fowler since 1985, and Mr. Fowler, having personally been involved in each civil action, were each aware of all that is contained in this motion for disqualification and recusal at the time this lawsuit commenced, and, if not, they were certainly aware of the information when this judge on October 7, 1987, issued an order in this case. A motion filed on October 4, 1988 — one year later — under these circumstances could not possibly be the timely motion that is required by 28 U.S.C. § 144, a section which has been construed to require a litigant to raise the issue of disqualification of a judge Black v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 503 F.Supp. 172, 173 (D.C.Ky.1980).
Even if the motion for disqualification and recusal were timely, it is conclusory in nature and void of facts showing the extra-judicial personal bias and prejudice that is disqualifying under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455.
As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said in 1979 in United States v. Serrano, 607 F.2d 1145 at 1151:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lenny Szarek, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Com'n
...prior case can force the judge to recuse himself from future cases by simply bringing a civil action against him." Fowler v. United States, 699 F.Supp. 925, 928 (M.D.Ga. 1988); see also In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F.Supp. 1237, 1243 (D.Conn.1983) ("it is clear that a judge is not disqualified......
-
Te-Ta-Ma Truth. v. World Church of Creator
...to disqualify because, inter alia, the moving party did not have "a legitimate basis for suing [the judge.]"); Fowler v. United States, 699 F.Supp. 925, 928 (M.D.Ga.1988) (determining that the moving party cannot suggest that "a litigant unhappy with a trial judge's ruling in a prior case c......
-
Lenny Szarek, Inc. v. The Workers' Compensation Commission, No. 03-08-0530WC (Ill. App. 2/19/2010), 03-08-0530WC.
...case can force the judge to recuse himself from future cases by simply bringing a civil action against him." Fowler v. United States, 699 F. Supp. 925, 928 (M.D. Ga. 1988); see also In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F. Supp. 1237, 1243 (D. Conn. 1983) ("it clear that a judge is not disqualified und......
-
Buttercase v. Frakes, 8:18CV131
...to disqualify because, inter alia, the moving party did not have "a legitimate basis for suing [the judge.]"); Fowler v. United States, 699 F. Supp. 925, 928 (M.D. Ga. 1988) (determining that the moving party cannot suggest that 'a litigant unhappy with a trialPage 2 judge's ruling in a pri......