UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHERRIE RUSSELL-BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:09-cv-257-MCR-GRJ

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA,

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, THE UNIVERSITY

OF FLORIDA LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW, 

and ROBERT H. JERRY, II in his 

individual and official capacities as 

Dean of the University of Florida, Levin

College of Law,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify Judges

And To Reassign Case. (Doc. 288.) Defendants have filed a Response (Doc. 289) and

therefore the motion is ripe for review. For the reasons discussed below the motion to

disqualify, as it applies to the undersigned, is due to be denied. 1

DISCUSSION

Relying upon 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) Plaintiff requests that I recuse myself from this

case because the University of Florida Defendants did not provide a response to

Plaintiff’s public records request for e-mails between the University of Florida

Defendants and myself. According to Plaintiff, because the University of Florida

 On May 16, 2012 Chief Judge Casey Rodgers entered an order reassigning the case to her 1

solely to effect the timely and efficient handling of all issues and claims in this case due to the

unavailability of Senior District Judge Paul. Because of the reassignment of the case Judge Rodgers

denied as moot the request for disqualification of Judge Paul and directed the undersigned to enter a

separate order addressing the motion as it relates to the disqualification of the undersigned.

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MCR-GRJ Document 291 Filed 05/16/12 Page 1 of 3
Defendants did not respond to her public records request, it heightened her concern

that there has been unlawful, ex-parte contact between the University of Florida

Defendants and myself. This is the sole reason offered by Plaintiff to disqualify me from

this case. Plaintiff does not offer any other details nor any specific information in

support of her request for disqualification. 

Defendants represent in their response that both the University of Florida and

the Florida Department of Education have now responded to Plaintiff’s public records

request and that none of the emails produced support Plaintiff’s accusation of improper

ex parte communications between the defendants and myself. (Doc. 289, p.4, ¶13.) 

The standard for recusal under § 455(a) is an objective one, requiring a court to

ask “whether an objective, disinterested lay observer fully informed of the facts

underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt

about the judge’s impartiality.” Bolin v Story, 225 F. 3d 1234, 1239 (11 Cir. 2000). To th

satisfy the requirements of § 455(a) a party must offer facts, not merely allegations, that

evidence partiality. See, United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1292 (11 Cir. th

1999)(“[a] charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis ... recusal

cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation’”). A party

should not be permitted to recuse a judge on unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous

speculation. United States v. Greenough, 782 F.2d 1556, 1558 (11 Cir. 1986.) “[I]f this th

occurred the price of maintaining the purity of the appearance of justice would be the

power of litigants or third parties to exercise a veto over the assignment of judges.” Id.

Plaintiff’s motion is based upon conjecture and her subjective concern rather

than upon any facts whatsoever. Notably, the motion does not point to any facts or

2

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MCR-GRJ Document 291 Filed 05/16/12 Page 2 of 3
information suggesting that ex-parte communications have occurred between me and

the University of Florida Defendants, the University of Florida Office of General

Counsel, the attorneys representing the University of Florida Defendants or any

attorneys involved in the case. Simply put, the motion is premised exclusively upon

Plaintiff’s conjecture that the University of Florida’s response to her public records

request means that the University of Florida Defendants have concealed ex-parte

communications with the undersigned. 

In the absence of any concrete, definite or particular facts that Plaintiff can point

to in support of her request for recusal, Plaintiff’s conjecture and subjective conclusions

– based solely upon the University of Florida’s response to her public records request –

is legally insufficient to support recusal and falls well short of demonstrating that any

reasonable individual could entertain significant doubt about the impartiality of the

undersigned. The fact that the University of Florida did not respond – in the manner

Plaintiff wanted – to her public records request is insufficient to cause any individual – 

let alone a well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer – to entertain significant

doubt about the judge’s impartiality. 

Accordingly, for these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion To Disqualify (Doc. 288) the

undersigned is due to be DENIED summarily.2

DONE AND ORDERED in Gainesville, Florida, on May 16, 2012.

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

 Because there is no factual or good faith basis for Plaintiff’s claim of judicial bias there is no 2

good reason to support Plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery. 

3

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MCR-GRJ Document 291 Filed 05/16/12 Page 3 of 3