United States District Court, D. Kansas
KEVIN D. LOGGINS, SR., Plaintiff,
REBECCA L. PILSHAW, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. Crabtree, United States District Judge.
plaintiff Kevin D. Loggins, Sr., brings an Amended
Complaint (Doc. 27) and the following motions before the
court: Motion to Recuse Judge Daniel Crabtree and to Remove
Cases from Topeka Division for Lack of Impartiality &
Inability to Receive a Fair Hearing (Doc. 26); Motion for
Status of Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Judge Daniel
Crabtree (Doc. 33); Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35);
Motion Seeking Adjudication of Plaintiff's Motion to
Recuse Judge Daniel Crabtree (Doc. 38); Motion Seeking
Default Judgment (Doc. 39); and Motion Seeking Status of
Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Judge Daniel Crabtree (Doc.
the court denies plaintiff's Motion to Recuse (Doc. 26)
for reasons explained below. Second, the court concludes that
plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 27) fails to address
the deficiencies the court identified in his first Complaint
(Doc. 1). The court thus dismisses the case for failure to
state a claim. The court denies the remainder of
plaintiff's motions as moot (Docs. 33, 35, 38, 39, &
September 25, 2018, plaintiff-a prisoner at Hutchinson
Correctional Facility-filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He sued 38 defendants. Doc. 1. Plaintiff also
brought seven motions as part of his § 1983 claim,
including a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 18).
Plaintiff sought leave to amend his Complaint so that he
could “add an additional count for conduct of Judge
James Fleetwood, and request punitive damages.” Doc. 18
court screened plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). See generally Doc. 20. This statute
requires the court to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
an employee of a governmental entity. The court must dismiss
any complaint (or any portion of a complaint) if it presents
claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or that seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). Plaintiff's
Complaint did not survive screening. Doc. 20 at 16-17. The
court identified the deficiencies in plaintiff's
Complaint but granted him leave to file a complete and proper
amended complaint. Id. at 17.
April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc.
27). He also has filed the following motions: Motion to
Recuse Judge Daniel Crabtree (Doc. 26); Motion for Status of
Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Judge Daniel Crabtree (Doc.
33); Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35); Motion Seeking
Adjudication of Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Judge Daniel
Crabtree (Doc. 38); Motion Seeking Default Judgment (Doc.
39); and Motion Seeking Status of Plaintiff's Motion to
Recuse Judge Daniel Crabtree (Doc. 41).
seeks to remove the judicial officer assigned to this case.
He argues that the assigned judge has shown a “lack of
neutrality and impartiality.” Doc. 26 at 13. He asserts
that the court's “claims of defi[ci]encies in
plaintiff[']s [C]omplaint are refuted by the record. In
fact Judge Daniel Crabtree argues affirmative defenses for
the [ ] defendants who[ ] have yet to respond to the
[C]omplaint . . . .” Id. at 2. Essentially,
plaintiff seeks recusal because the court's March 27,
2019 Order granting plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint identified deficiencies in plaintiff's
Complaint. The Order explained those deficiencies and
directed plaintiff to address them if he filed an Amended
statutes govern judicial recusal, 28 U.S.C. §§ 144
and 455. Burleson v. Sprint PCS Group, 123 Fed.Appx.
957, 959 (10th Cir. 2005). For recusal under § 144, the
moving party must submit an affidavit showing bias and
prejudice. Id. (citing Glass v. Pfeffer,
849 F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988)). The bias and prejudice
must be personal, extrajudicial, and identified by
“facts of time, place, persons, occasions, and
circumstances.” Id. at 960 (quoting Hinman
v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937, 939 (10th Cir. 1987)). These
facts will be accepted as true, but they must be more than
conclusions, rumors, beliefs, and opinions. Id.
Without an affidavit showing bias or prejudice and proper
identification of events manifesting a personal and
extrajudicial bias, plaintiff cannot support a request for
recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144.
under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge must disqualify himself
“in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned, ” or “[w]here he has a
personal bias or prejudice concerning a party . . . .”
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) & (b)(1). The test for
determining impartiality is an objective one, based on a
judge's “outward manifestations and reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom.” Nichols v. Alley,
71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
here alleges no facts suggesting personal bias or prejudice.
Plaintiff appears to interpret the court's March 27, 2019
Order as adverse to him because it identified deficiencies in
his Complaint. But adverse rulings do not provide a reason
for recusal. See Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296,
1305 (10th Cir. 1997) (stating that “adverse rulings
‘cannot in themselves form the appropriate grounds for
disqualification'” (quoting Green v.
Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 919 (10th Cir. 1992))). In sum,
plaintiff has failed to establish any grounds to remove the
assigned judge from this case. The court thus denies
plaintiff's Motion to Recuse (Doc. 26). Also, the court
denies as moot plaintiff's motions seeking a status
update on his recusal motion (Docs. 33, 38, & 41).
plaintiff brings this § 1983 action alleging that he is
incarcerated wrongfully because of errors committed in his
underlying criminal proceeding. First, the court recites the
legal standard that applies to pro se prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or officer. The court
then notes the deficiencies it already has identified in
plaintiff's Complaint. Finally, the court analyzes