Hooker v. Story
| Decision Date | 28 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-2786,98-2786 |
| Citation | 159 F.3d 1139 |
| Parties | Virgil O. HOOKER; Dora E. Hooker; David Hooker; Gloria J. Hooker; Appellants, v. Bentley E. STORY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appellants, pro se.
Shirley E. Guntharp, Little Rock AR, argued, for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
After Virgil O. Hooker, Dora E. Hooker, David O. Hooker, and Gloria J. Hooker were unsuccessful in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Arkansas Chancery Judge Bentley E. Story, see Hooker v. Story, No. 98-1658 (8th Cir. Apr. 7, 1998) (unpublished per curiam), they filed the instant lawsuit against him, this time seeking declaratory relief based on the same facts. In addition, relying on the adverse outcome of the prior lawsuit, plaintiffs moved for recusal of the District Court judge. 1 The District Court denied plaintiffs' recusal motion and granted defendant's motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appeal.
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Hookers' recusal motion. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 541, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (); A.J. by L.B. v. Kierst, 56 F.3d 849, 861 (8th Cir.1995) (). We also conclude the District Court correctly dismissed the Hookers' complaint on the basis of res judicata. See Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398-99 & n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981) (). We find the Hookers' remaining arguments on appeal to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Womack v. Bradshaw
-
United States v. Melton
...Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (“[Judicial rulings] are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); Hooker v. Story, 159 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam). This general rule especially holds true here because Melton has failed to present any evidence demonstrating the ......
-
Searcy v. Donelson
...filed against IRS agents null and void). Finally, we find meritless Searcy's claim of judicial misconduct. See Hooker v. Story, 159 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (judicial rulings alone rarely provide valid basis for bias or partiality recusal Because the arguments Searcy adv......
-
Johnson v. Nixon, No. 08-2984 (8th Cir. 1/7/2010), 08-2984.
...We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the recusal motion. See Hooker v. Story, 159 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard of Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We deny appellee Larry Maddox's motion to strike appellants' brief or ......