DEPPE
v.
VETTER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A judge must recuse herself when she is a party to the proceeding or when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The plaintiff moved to disqualify the undersigned judge, indicating an intent to name the judge as a defendant. The plaintiff subsequently moved to am…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Impartiality Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff moves to disqualify the undersigned. (Dkt. 172.) In that motion, Plaintiff indicated that he planned to name the undersigned as a defendant in this matter. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff has since moved to amend his amended complaint to, among other things, name the undersigned as a defendant. (See Dkts. 176, 176-1.)
Recusal is mandatory where a judge is a party to the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(i) (stating that a judge "shall . . . disqualify [her]self” when she "[i]s a party to the proceeding"); see Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 F. App'x 231, 233 (11th Cir. 2008) ("Federal law states that a judge 'shall disqualify h[er]self' when [s]he is a party to the proceeding, and the parties cannot waive this provision." (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(i), (e))). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) requires a judge to disqualify "[her]self in any proceeding in which h[er] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865 (1988) ("The very purpose of § 455(a) is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible."). Because the undersigned is called to rule upon a motion that seeks to add her as a party to the action, the court finds that recusal is proper. See Zow v. Regions Fin. Corp., 595 F. App’x 887, 890 (2014) ("A judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned if an objective, fully informed lay observer would entertain significant doubt about h[er] impartiality.").
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Motion to Disqualify Judge Sneed from the Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 (Dkt. 172) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to reassign this case pursuant to its normal procedures.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on March 25, 2025.
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties