Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ELAINE D. HARPER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case Number 4:03cv347-RH/WCS

ALBERTO GONZALES,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a number of documents. A motion for an

extension of time was filed on June 17, 2005, requesting an extra fourteen days in

which to respond to Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment, doc. 43. Doc.

48. Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks the extra time until a ruling is made on her

simultaneously filed motion for recusal, doc. 49. 

Plaintiff's motion seeks my recusal and the recusal of Chief District Judge Hinkle. 

Doc. 49. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law, doc. 51, with several

exhibits, doc. 45, and an affidavit. Doc. 50.

Case 4:03-cv-00347-RH-WCS Document 52 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case Number 4:03cv347-RH/WCS

The "affidavit of bias and prejudice" states that Plaintiff conducted an "evaluation

of the Honorable Hinkle and Sherrill's records in civil suits against the Department of

Justice and has determined that their records clearly shows an extreme PREJUDICE

against African-American pro-se litigants." Doc. 50. The specifics of such bias is not

alleged.

Plaintiff also states that I said in an order "that, 'Since Plaintiff is such a

decorated Veteran, she should be able to find a way to pay for service.' " Doc. 51, p. 2. 

The passage in that order states: "Plaintiff paid the filing fee when this case was

initiated. Plaintiff has described herself in the complaint as a 'highly decorated' veteran,

she is articulate and, from these proceedings thus far, appears fully able to serve

process." Doc. 17, p. 2.

Plaintiff asserts there must have been "ex parte communication" when I denied a

request for production filed by Plaintiff. Doc. 51, p. 3. The request was denied on

relevancy grounds, grounds which were obvious from the kinds of documents sought,

not because any of the documents were reviewed. See doc. 47, pp. 3-4.

The grounds for recusal alleged are connected to my rulings in this case and in

other cases. A judge's rulings are not valid grounds for recusal. Berger v. United

States, 255 U.S. 22, 31, 41 S. Ct. 230, 232, 65 L. Ed. 481 (1921); see also U.S. v.

Berger, 375 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that adverse court rulings are

"insufficient to form a basis for recusal."). Recusal is only required when an alleged bias

is personal in nature. Berger, 375 F.3d at 1227-28; Phillips v. Joint Legislative Comm.,

637 F.2d 1014, 1020 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 960 (1982). There are no

contentions of a personal bias stemming "from an extra-judicial source." United States

Case 4:03-cv-00347-RH-WCS Document 52 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case Number 4:03cv347-RH/WCS

v. Bailey, 175 F.3d 966, 968 (11th Cir. 1999). Since none of the circumstances of §

455(b) are applicable in this case, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

Plaintiff shall be afforded an extra period of time in which to file her opposition to

summary judgment in accordance with Rule 56 as previously explained to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff shall have until July 15, 2005, in which to file her response. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's motion for an enlargement of time, doc. 48, is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff shall filed her opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion no

later than July 15, 2005.

3. Plaintiff's motion that I recuse myself, doc. 49, is DENIED.

4. The Clerk is directed to refer this motion, do. 49, for recusal to Chief Judge

Hinkle for his ruling as to the part that pertains to him

5. The Clerk of Court shall return this file to the undersigned upon Plaintiff's filing

of her opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion, or no later than July 15,

2005.

DONE AND ORDERED on June 28, 2005.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:03-cv-00347-RH-WCS Document 52 Filed 06/28/05 Page 3 of 3