Hoff v. Joyce

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Kevin Michael Hoff, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL
)
vs. 	)
)
Joseph Joyce, North Dakota 	) 	Case No. 1:22-cv-151
State Penitentiary, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
On November 27, 2023, Defendant filed what the court construed as a motion for recusal.
(Doc. No. 67). He asserts the court is biased as it has deprived him of legal resources by denying
without prejudice his motions for the appointment of counsel and has ostensibly allowed his claims
of abuse at the hands of Defendant to continue as it has not yet granted him the ultimate relief he
seeks.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) provides that a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding
in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Impartiality is judged objectively:
“Would the average person, knowing the facts alleged by the part[y] seeking disqualification,
question the Judge's impartiality, and, if so, would the question be reasonable?” O'Bannon v. Union
Pac. R.R. Co., 169 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir. 1999). Stated differently, the test is “whether the
judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the average person on the street who knows
all the relevant facts of a case.” Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Co., 323 F.3d 661, 664 (8th Cir.
2003); see also Am. Prairie Const. Co. v. Hoich, 560 F.3d 780, 789 (8th Cir. 2009). If this test is not
satisfied, judges have a duty to decide the cases and controversies which come before them. See
Perkins v. Spivey, 911 F.2d 22, 28 (8th Cir. 1990); see also Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 541 U.S. 913,
916 (2004) (Memo. of Scalia, J.).
1
Case 1:22-cv-00151-CRH Document 68 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 2

The court finds no basis for recusal and reassignment of this matter. Plaintiff's allegations
regarding the court's alleged biases are conclusory and not supported by any facts. Previous adverse
rulings are not evidence of bias. See Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 952–53 (8th Cir.
2005) (concluding that adverse rulings “almost never” constitute a valid basis for recusal).
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 67) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of January, 2024.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:22-cv-00151-CRH Document 68 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 2