Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 14 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

JAMES STEGEMAN, :
JANET STEGEMAN, :
Plaintiffs, :
: CIVIL ACTION
v. : 1:08-CV-1971-WSD
:
SUPERIOR COURT STONE :
MOUNTAIN, et al., :
Defendants.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECUSE OR DISQUALIFY

Comes Now Judge Cynthia Becker and the Superior Court of the Stone

Mountain Judicial Circuit through Thurbert Baker Attorney General for the State

of Georgia, and file their response to Plaintiffs’ motion to recuse the Honorable

William S. Duffy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. In their motion, Plaintiffs contend

that Judge Duffey, Jr., should be recused or disqualified from their case because he

is biased against pro se and disabled persons, and against Plaintiff James Stegeman

specifically.

Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied because they have failed to make the

requisite showing. Under § 455, a judge should recuse himself if “his impartiality

might be reasonably questioned” or if “he has a personal bias or prejudice

concerning a party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). “A judge should be disqualified

only if a reasonable person, apprised of all the facts and circumstances, would
 Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 14 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 2 of 4

question the judge’s impartiality.” United States v. Killough, 848 F.2d 1523, 1529

(11th Cir. 1988). Ordinarily, “[t]he bias or prejudice must be personal and

extrajudicial.” United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 828-29 (11th Cir. 2007)

(quotations and citations omitted). Thus, “judicial rulings alone almost never

constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States,

510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).

In the instant case, a cursory review of the motion to recuse or disqualify

shows that it is patently insufficient. Indeed, the Plaintiffs fail to provide support

for their motion other than the fact that the judge has ruled against them in other

matters. Therefore, it is apparent that the basis for recusal rests on judicial

conduct, as opposed to extra-judicial conduct.

2
 Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 14 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 3 of 4

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Recuse or

Disqualify should be denied.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of August, 2008.

THURBERT E. BAKER 033887

Attorney General

KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS 558555

Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Devon Orland_____________________

DEVON ORLAND 554301
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Please Send Communications To:
Devon Orland
State of Georgia Department of Law
40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300
Telephone: (404) 463-8850
Facsimile: (404) 651-5304; E-mail: dorland@law.ga.gov

3
 Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 14 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 7, 2008, I electronically filed the State

of Georgia’s RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECUSE

OR DISQUALIFY with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system

which will automatically send email notification of such filing to all

attorneys of record: Daniel Reinhardt

Sent through United States Mail to pro se Plaintiff:

James Stegemam
Janet McDonald/Stegeman
821 Sheppard Road
Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083

This 7 day of August, 2008.

s/Devon Orland
Georgia Bar No. 554301
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Please Send
Communications To:

Devon Orland
State of Georgia Department of Law
40 Capitol Square, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300
Telephone: (404) 463-8850
Facsimile: (404) 651-5304
E-mail: dorland@law.ga.gov