IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOHN WILLIAMS MILLER, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-1538-B-BH

)

CHAD MEACHUM, et al., )

Defendants. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the plaintiff’s Motion to recuse, filed July

22, 2022 (doc. 8 at 3),2 is DENIED.

John Williams Miller (Plaintiff), a current resident of Dallas, Texas, sues the United States

Attorney for the Northern District of Texas and a federal appellate judge in the Eleventh Circuit under

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for

violations of his constitutional rights. (See doc. 3 at 2-4.) This is the second lawsuit that he has filed

against the appellate judge in this district; his first lawsuit was transferred to the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where the Eleventh Circuit sits. See Miller v. Rosenbaum,

No. 3:21-CV-2852-K-BK (N.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2021). Although Plaintiff’s complaint also names an

individual defendant located in this district, it contains no allegations at all concerning that defendant. 

On July 20, 2022, it was recommended that this case be dismissed for improper venue and failure to

state a claim. (See doc. 6.) The plaintiff now seeks recusal of the assigned magistrate judge, alleging

bias against him. (See doc. 8 at 2-3.) 

A judge is required to stand recused “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “As the goal of § 455(a) ‘is to exact the appearance

1

 By standing order of reference filed on July 18, 2022 (doc. 5), this pro se civil rights case has been automatically referred

for full case management.

2

 Citations to the record refer to the CM/ECF system page number at the top of each page rather than the page numbers

at the bottom of each filing.

Case 3:22-cv-01538-B-BH Document 11 Filed 07/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 112
of impartiality,’ recusal may be mandated even though no actual partiality exists.” United States v.

Avilez-Reyes, 160 F.3d 258, 259 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Hall v. Small Business Admin., 695 F.2d

175, 178 (5th Cir. 1983)). To merit recusal, the movant “must show that, if a reasonable man knew

of all the circumstances, he would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” Chitimacha Tribe

of La. v. Harry L. Laws Co., 690 F.2d 1157, 1165 (5th Cir. 1982). Adverse rulings do not render the

judge biased, however. Matter of Hipp, Inc., 5 F.3d 109, 116 (5th Cir. 1993). “[J]udicial rulings

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. . . . [T]hey . . . can only in

the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no

extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for

recusal.” Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

Here, the plaintiff provides only speculation in support of his claim of bias. He does not cite

any relevant, extrajudicial information that would cause a reasonable person, knowing all the

circumstances, to question the impartiality of the assigned magistrate judge. The motion, which was

filed two days after the recommended dismissal of the case, appears to be based on adverse rulings. 

As noted, adverse rulings do not render a judge biased. Because it presents no valid grounds for

recusal, the motion for recusal is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED on this 26th day of July, 2022.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 3:22-cv-01538-B-BH Document 11 Filed 07/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 113