NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE GARY R. JONES

Regina R. Wims

P.O. Box 5471

Gainesville, FL 32627

Phone | Fax

Email

Plaintiff in pro per

in the united states district court

for the northern district of florida

gainesville division

NOTICE OF MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE GARY R. JONES

You are notified that on the ____ day of _________________, 2021, at ________ (time), or as soon thereafter as the Plaintiff can be heard, in Courtroom ___ of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the Plaintiff will bring on for hearing her Motion to Recuse Judge Gary R. Jones for the reasons stated in the attached Motion.

Dated this 22^nd day of December, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Regina R. Wims

Plaintiff in pro per

Regina R. Wims

P.O. Box 5471

Gainesville, FL 32627

Phone | Fax

Email

Plaintiff in pro per

in the united states district court

for the northern district of florida

gainesville division

NOW COMES Regina R. Wims, Plaintiff, and files Motion to Recuse Judge Gary R. Jones (hereinafter referred to as the “Learned Judge”), and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

1. A federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
2. “The very purpose of § 455(a) is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865 (1988). And, “the standard for recusal under § 455(a) is 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.” United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 745 (11th Cir. 1989); Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 & n.12 (11th Cir. 1988) (emphasizing that the test is whether a “lay observer,” and not one “trained in the law,” would reasonably question the judge’s impartiality). Under this standard, all doubts must be “resolved in favor of recusal.” Id.
3. Plaintiff seeks recusal of the Learned Judge based on the fact that he has a professional relationship with (Name of Attorney & State Bar Number), an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida under the firm of (Attorney’s Law Firm) and whose business address is (Attorney’s Firm’s Address).
4. Defendants are represented by an attorney working at the firm of (Attorney’s Law Firm). (Name of Attorney) used to work at (Attorney’s Firm’s Address). At the time he worked there, he had a professional relationship with the Learned Judge whereby (kindly elaborate in more detail the judge’s professional relationship with the judge). That professional relationship creates a conflict of interest. Exhibit 1 (these are the documents you have to prove a conflict of interest).
5. Upon analyzing the facts above, a lay observer would have doubts as to the Learned Judge’s impartiality in this case. A lay observer would come to a conclusion that the Learned Judge will favor the Defendants because of his interest in the firm of the attorney that represents Defendants.
6. “Objective standards may also require recusal whether or not actual bias exists or can be proved.” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868, 886 (2009) (citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), for the proposition that “[d]ue process ‘may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties.’”). Thus, 455(a) “clearly mandates . . . a judge err on the side of caution and disqualify himself in a questionable case.” Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1112 (5th Cir. 1980). Section 455(a)’s disqualification requirement “expand[s] the protection” of the specifically required disqualification scenarios of § 455(b). Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 552 (1994).
7. There is a very high possibility that the Learned Judge will be biased against Plaintiff due to the conflict of interest. The Learned Judge will be inclined towards ruling in favor of Defendants because their attorney works in a firm that the Learned Judge used to have a relationship with. It is only fair for all parties that the Learned Judge recuse himself from hearing and deciding this case so that an impartial judge with no interest in this case whatsoever can take over and issue a just ruling.
8. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges also instructs judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,” Canon 2, and specifically to “respect and comply with the law and [to] act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” Canon 2(A). “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances . . . would conclude that the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.” Commentary to Canon 2(A). Violations of the Code may, on their own, be sufficient to “destroy the appearance of impartiality and thus violate § 455(a).” See, e.g., United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 114-15 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
9. The conflict of interest between the Learned Judge and the law firm of the attorney that represents Defendants raises a lot of pertinent questions about the Learned Judge’s impartiality in this matter. The Learned Judge’s continued participation as a judge in this case will erode the trust of the public in the judiciary. The only thing remaining is the recusal of Judge Gary R. Jones to honorably recuse himself from this case.

REASONS WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests Judge Gary R. Jones to recuse himself from hearing and determining this matter.

Dated this 22^nd day of December, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________________

Regina R. Wims

Plaintiff in pro per

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )