Case Name: Vernon J. TATUM, Jr. v. The ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2005-01-26
Citations: 894 So. 2d 1180
Docket Number: No. 2004-CA-1190
Parties: Vernon J. TATUM, Jr. v. The ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
Judges: Court composed of Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBÍAS, Jr., and Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO, Jr.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 894
Pages: 1180–1182

Head Matter:
Vernon J. TATUM, Jr. v. The ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
No. 2004-CA-1190.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 26, 2005.
Vernon J. Tatum, Jr., New Orleans, in Proper Person, Plaintifi/Appellant.
Franklin V. Endom, Jr., Rosenberg & Endom, L.L.P., New Orleans, Counsel for Defendani/Appellee.
Court composed of Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBÍAS, Jr., and Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO, Jr.

Opinion:
| .TOBIAS, J.
Vernon J. Tatum, Jr. ("Tatum") appeals the 23 April 2004 order signed by the Honorable Yada T. Magee, Judge of Division "F" of the Civil District Court, which sets aside and vacates her 17 March 2004 order recusing herself from this case.
On 12 March 2004, Tatum filed a pleading entitled "Motion for Recusal," in which he asserted that Judge Magee should re-cuse herself on the grounds of bias. Tatum pointed to a 24 January 2003 hearing before Judge Magee on an exception of no cause of action and rule to show cause in another suit filed by Tatum against the Honorable Dale N. Atkins, Clerk of the Civil District Court (case bearing docket number 2002-13460). Tatum alleged that Judge Magee showed bias-against him in that earlier case when he asked whether the hearing was being transcribed and whether the witnesses had been sequestered. Allegedly, Judge Magee responded that witnesses were not allowed to testify during exceptions, hearings, and rules. According to Tatum, Judge Magee recused herself from case number 2002-13460; consequently, he requested that Judge Ma-gee recuse herself from the instant case based on his fear that she would act with bias and vindictiveness toward him. Tatum has not alleged any judicial improprieties in the instant case.
| a As noted above, on 17 March 2004 Judge Magee signed an order recusing herself in the instant case. Subsequently, on 11 May 2004, Judge Magee signed an order setting aside and vacating the order of recusal of 17 March 2004, stating that the 17 March 2004 order was signed in error. On 21 May 2004, Tatum filed a motion for appeal and designation of the record regarding Judge Magee's order setting aside and vacating her recusal order. On 3 June 2004, Judge Magee granted Tatum an appeal.
This court held in Arcement v. Cruz, 02-2533, p. 1 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/20/02), 836 So.2d 314, 315 that "Once a trial judge recuses himself or herself from hearing a case, the judge is thereafter precluded from hearing that case ever again." It therefore clearly follows that if a trial judge recuses himself or herself from a case, the trial judge may not take any further action in that case, including that of rescinding the prior order of recusal. State v. Clarke, 2003-0129, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/29/03), 857 So.2d 599, 602, citing Arcement, supra.
In State v. Price, 274 So.2d 194, 197 (La.1973), the Supreme Court said,
It has long been recognized in our civil procedure that once a judge is recused, or a motion for his recusal has been filed, he has no power to act (except to appoint the proper person to sit ad hoc when the law provides for such an appointment). Any action taken by a re-cused judge is an absolute nullity. State v. Judge of Twenty-First Judicial District, 37 La. Ann. 253 (1885); State v. Judge of Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, 39 La. Ann. 994, 3 So. 91 (1887); Jones v. Cunningham, 157 La. 208, 102 So. 309 (1924); State v. Savoy, 207 La. 982, 22 So.2d 402 (1945).
In light of the jurisprudence noted above, we hold that Judge Magee is re-cused in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court that restored Judge Magee to her position of presiding over this case and remand this matter to the Civil District Court for real-lotment to another division of that court, ^excluding from that allotment Division "F" of the court.
REVERSED.
CANNIZZARO, J., dissents with reasons.