Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190807_0002562.WNC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-05 23:45:39
Document Index: 491055381

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2254', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 144', '§ 2254']

FindACase™ | Nanney v. Hooks
Nanney v. Hooks
JAMES DAVID NANNEY, Plaintiff,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Doc. No. 1), and on Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue, (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. See (Doc. No. 8).
Pro se Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (Doc. No. 1). The District of Columbia court transferred the matter to this Court due to improper venue. (Doc. No. 3). Plaintiff names as the sole Defendant Eric A. Hooks, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety. The Complaint alleges verbatim:
The Defendant/Respondent violated my constitutional rights to a fair trial by responding to a case against the State of North Carolina, and not Department of Public Safety Prisons System. The Defendant had no right to be a Respondent in this case #1:18-cv-00273-FDW. Because this case did not involved the North Carolina Department of Public Safety prison system. The Plaintiff is asking for a jury trial and $5 billion dollars in damages Plaintiff is own attorney.
(Doc. No. 1 at 1).
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the Alexander Correctional Institution in Taylorsville, North Carolina. The case to which he refers in his Complaint, 1:18-cv-00273-FDW, is a habeas case that was filed in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 addressing a Buncombe County, North Carolina, criminal case.[1]
None of the alleged acts or omissions occurred in the District of Columbia and no party resides there. The District Court for the District of Columbia properly transferred the case to this Court due to lack of venue. Plaintiff's Motion to change venue back to the District of Columbia will therefore be denied.
To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that the Clerk of Court is prejudiced against him, this allegation is insufficient to warrant any relief. Liberally construing the Motion, it appears that Plaintiff may be asking the Court to recuse itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. Under § 144, a litigant may seek recusal of a judge if the litigant files “a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party.” 28 U.S.C. § 144. The Clerk of Court is not a judge, and therefore § 144 does not apply. Moreover, Plaintiff's allegations - that the Clerk of Court entered judgment against him pursuant to the Court's Order denying and dismissing the § 2254 petition with prejudice, does not merit any relief. See generally Marty's Floor Covering Co. v. GAF Corp., 604 F.2d 266 (4th Cir. 1979). Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff moves for the Court's recusal, it will be denied.