Title: Ex Parte Large

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

501 So. 2d 1208 (1986)
Ex parte E. Ray LARGE, Jerry L. Thornton, and Howard Donovan III.
In re Artis HAYES; Jessie T. Hayes; and Stephanie C. Hayes, a minor who sues By and Through her parents and next friends, Artis Hayes and Jessie T. Hayes
v.
Jerry L. THORNTON, E. Ray Large, and W. Howard Donovan III.
85-1351.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 19, 1986.
Rehearing Denied January 23, 1987.
*1209 E. Ray Large, Birmingham, pro se.
Jerry L. Thornton, Hayneville, pro se.
W. Howard Donovan III, Birmingham, pro se.
Charles Nesbitt of Gillis & Nesbitt, Montgomery, for respondents.
MADDOX, Justice.
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel the recusal of a circuit court judge on the ground that he was biased and prejudiced against the petitioners.
The underlying action arose when the parents of an injured minor child sought to have their contract with the petitioners set aside on the grounds that it was not being enforced as they understood it. The petitioners had represented the minor child, Stephanie Hayes, suing by and through her father and next friend, Artis Hayes, in a medical malpractice action in 1982; by the terms of the settlement reached in that case, the minor plaintiff was to receive a $300,000 cash payment and an annuity to pay $1,500 per month for her life. As the petitioners were employed on a contingent fee basis, they received a percentage of the cash payment at the time of the settlement, and they have been receiving half of the monthly annuity payments since that time.
In November of 1985, Jessie Hayes filed a motion, pro se, in an attempt to have the contract set aside, claiming that she did not understand the agreement with the petitioners to include a portion of the monthly annuity payments. Judge Charles Price initially denied that motion, but later appointed a guardian ad litem, who has filed an action naming as defendants the petitioners and the judgment rendered in Civil Action CV-80-1184-H, which incorporated the contract now in question.
Petitioners allege that mandamus is proper because of remarks Judge Price made during the initial hearing on Jessie Hayes's motion to set aside the original judgment. Judge Price sits in this case as successor to Judge Perry Hooper, and this case was originally assigned to Judge Hooper. At the hearing on Jessie Hayes's motion, Judge Price indicated that he was disturbed about the terms of the settlement, in light of the employment agreement, and he expressed concern that Judge Hooper had not appointed a guardian ad litem to ensure that the best interests of the minor child were safeguarded:
Petitioners contend that Judge Price's statements evidence such bias and prejudice as to mandate his recusal in this case; they assert that his impartiality is reasonably in question.
Canon 3 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics provides in pertinent part:
This Court recognizes the importance of judicial impartiality, but we cannot say as a matter of law that statements such as Judge Price made in this case are sufficient, in and of themselves, to show bias. Of course, as Judge DeCarlo, writing for the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, once said, "Implanted in the foundation of public policy is the general rule that no judge shall preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, and independent." Ex parte White, 53 Ala.App. 377, 386, 300 So. 2d 420, 429, cert. denied, 293 Ala. 778, 300 So. 2d 439 (1974). Or, as Justice Frankfurter once said, "[J]ustice must satisfy the appearance of justice." Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S. Ct. 11, 13, 99 L. Ed. 11 (1954).
Nevertheless, we must also recognize that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and will not be granted unless the petitioner can show a clear legal right to relief. Ex parte Army Aviation Center Federal Credit Union, 477 So. 2d 379 (Ala. 1985). To demonstrate a clear right to relief, the petitioners must show that the alleged bias is "personal" rather than "judicial." White, supra. The United States Supreme Court stated, in this regard:
United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583, 86 S. Ct. 1698, 1710, 16 L. Ed. 778 (1966) (quoted in Hartman v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala., 436 So. 2d 837 (Ala.1983)).
In this case, we cannot say that the petitioners have demonstrated a clear right to have Judge Price recuse himself. The judge's statements arose out of a judicial proceeding and, although he said he was disturbed about the terms of the agreement, the remarks he made, in our opinion, do not show a bias against the petitioners *1211 personally. In fact, the record shows that the judge at one point during the hearing stated, "Don't misunderstand what I am saying. I think it is a good settlement.... Well, I am not accusing you, because you have been practicing law for a long time.... I do not have any problem with the way this case was handled. I do not have any problem with $300,000 in this case."
At a later hearing on petitioners' motion for recusal, Judge Price again indicated his lack of bias against the petitioners and lack of prejudgment of the case, when he said:
Based on the foregoing, this Court cannot find that the petitioners have made a clear showing that recusal is required in this case. Judge Price unequivocally states that he is not biased against petitioners and that he holds no bias for or against either side in this action.
While we deny the writ requested by the petitioners, we do not hold that the Hayeses have stated sufficient grounds for relief against the petitioners. We do not decide that issue in this proceeding. That question will be presented before Judge Price. We do hold, however, that petitioners have shown no clear legal right to relief at this time.
WRIT DENIED.
TORBERT, C.J., and ALMON, BEATTY and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.