United States District Court, D. Delaware
In re THOMAS E. NOBLE, Movant.
CHIEF JUDGE LEONARD STARK, Respondent. THOMAS E. NOBLE, Petitioner,
Thomas A. Noble ("Movant"), a pro se
litigant incarcerated at FDC Philadelphia, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, sought leave to file a new complaint as
required by an order enjoining him from filing any pro
se civil rights complaints without prior approval of
this Court. See Noble v. Becker, Civ. No.
03-906-KAJ, D.I. 12. On April 30, 2018, I denied Movant leave
to file a new complaint. (D.I. 6, 7). Movant has now filed a
motion to correct category of this case and to enjoin the
Clerk of Court from assigning his cases (D.I. 8), a motion to
file only one copy of all documents and for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (D.I. 10) and a motion to stay and
vacate order and to enjoin me from further adjudicating the
case (D.I. 12).
Case Assignment and Injunction.
complains that this action was improperly opened as a
miscellaneous matter rather than as a civil action. (D.I. 8).
Movant must receive permission before filing a pro
se civil rights action. This requires that the matter be
opened as a miscellaneous matter. Movant also seeks to enjoin
the Clerk of Court from assigning any of his cases and from
assigning his cases to judges in this court. (Id.)
obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show:
"(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it
will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3)
that granting preliminary relief will not result in even
greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public
interest favors such relief." Kos Pharm. v. Andrx
Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004). Movant has not
met the requisites for injunctive relief. The motion will be
Filing Documents and In Forma Pauperis.
seeks leave to file only one copy of all documents and for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Movant was not
given leave to file a civil complaint and this matter is
closed. The motion will be dismissed as moot.
Motion to Stay, Vacate, and Enjoin.
contends that I cannot ethically adjudicate this case. He
also asserts that only an impartial district court judge
designated by the Supreme Court and not under the
jurisdiction of United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, can ethically adjudicate the case. In essence, he
seeks my recusal
judge is required to recuse himself "in any proceeding
in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The test for
recusal under § 455(a) is whether a "reasonable
person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that
the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
" In re Kensington Int'l Ltd., 368
F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004), not "whether a judge
actually harbors bias against a party, " United
States v. Kennedy, 682 F.3d 244, 258 (3d Cir. 2012).
Under § 455(b)(1), a judge is required to recuse himself
"[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning
Under either subsection, the bias necessary to require
recusal generally "must stem from a source outside of
the official proceedings." Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994); Selkridge v.
United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 155, 167 (3d
Cir. 2004) (beliefs or opinions which merit recusal must
involve an extrajudicial factor). Hence, "judicial
rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a
bias or partiality motion." Liteky, 510 U.S. at
Movant takes exception to this Court's judicial rulings.
This serves as his only basis to seek recusal. A reasonable,
well-informed observer could not believe that the rulings
were based on impartiality, bias, or actual prejudice by the
undersigned. Nor do my rulings demonstrate the Court acting
in such manner when ruling in the cases wherein Movant is a
party. After careful and deliberate consideration, I have
concluded that the Court has no actual bias or prejudice
towards Movant and that a reasonable, well-informed observer
would not question the Court's impartiality. In light of
the foregoing standard and after considering Movant's
assertions, the undersigned concludes that there are no
grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Finally, a
stay is not warranted and there is no basis to vacate orders
entered in this matter.
above reasons, the Court will deny Movant's motion to
correct category of this case and to enjoin Clerk (D.I. 8)
and motion to stay and vacate order and to enjoin (D.I. 12)
and will dismiss as moot his motion for leave to file one
copy of all documents and for leave ...