Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40994/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40994-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Casso
Appellee
City of Laredo
Appellee
Cynthia Collazo
Appellee
Monica Flores
Appellee
Oda Garcia
Appellant
Hector Gonzalez
Appellee
Oscar Perez
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40994

Summary Calendar

ODA GARCIA,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

CITY OF LAREDO, A Home Rule City; HECTOR GONZALEZ, Official 

Capacity; OSCAR PEREZ, Official Capacity; CYNTHIA COLLAZO, Official 

Capacity; MONICA FLORES, Official Capacity; RAUL CASSO, Official 

Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-140

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Oda Garcia appeals the denial of her request for a preliminary 

injunction. In September of 2014, Garcia filed a motion to recuse Judge 

Saldana, alleging that the judge’s husband works for a defendant in the case. 

This motion remains pending in the district court, and we previously denied 

Garcia’s motion to recuse Judge Saldana presented to our court because such 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40994 Document: 00513046685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
No. 14-40994

a ruling would be premature. Garcia v. City of Laredo, Case No. 14-40994 (5th 

Cir. Nov. 17, 2014). We cannot determine from the record why no ruling has 

issued yet.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge “shall disqualify [herself] in any 

proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and 

also where her spouse “[i]s known by the judge to have an interest that could 

be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) 

& (b)(5)(iii). The issue of recusal can affect rulings issued by the judge. See 

Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 485 (5th Cir. 2003) (explaining 

circumstances under which reversal or vacation of orders entered by judge who 

should have recused is appropriate).

Because the district court has not yet addressed the motion, we lack the 

basis to determine whether Judge Saldana should recuse herself from the case 

or whether recusal would affect the validity of the district court’s decision 

denying injunctive relief. We conclude that the district court should address 

the motion to recuse before we consider the earlier order. Accordingly, we 

REMAND the case to the district court for the limited purpose of considering

the outstanding motion. Once that issue is resolved, this appeal will be 

returned to active status at which time Garcia may also request permission to 

file supplemental briefing.

2

Case: 14-40994 Document: 00513046685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2015