Sanders v. Grady County District Court et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHUCK BRIAY SANDERS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-01571-JD
)
CHARLES JEFF SIFERS, District Attorney 	)
for Grady County, Oklahoma, in his Official 	)
Capacity; DAPHNE WHEAT, Assistant 	)
District Attorney for Grady County, Oklahoma, )
in her Official Capacity; KORI BREWER, 	)
Assistant District Attorney for Grady County, 	)
Oklahoma, in her Official Capacity; 	)
GINA LOWE, Magistrate Judge for Grady 	)
County, Oklahoma, in her Official Capacity; and)
KORY KIRKLAND, District Judge for Grady 	)
County, Oklahoma, in his Official Capacity, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse and for Disqualification of Jodi
Dishman (“Motion”) [Doc. No. 9]. Plaintiff filed the Motion after the Court ordered
Plaintiff to cure pleading deficiencies in his Amended Complaint. See Order [Doc. No.
8]. Plaintiff contends that the undersigned judge should recuse and the case should be
reassigned because the undersigned judge’s husband has one of Plaintiff’s pending state
court cases, which Plaintiff asserts is related. Motion at 1–2. The Court was unaware of
Plaintiff’s state court proceeding, and Plaintiff does not cite the case number in his
Motion. However, upon a search and review of the Oklahoma State Courts Network, and
judicial notice of the docket, see Chuck Sanders v. Park Manor Apartments, Oklahoma
Case 5:25-cv-01571-D Document 11 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 2

2
County District Court Case No. CJ-2025-846, the state court proceeding was filed on
February 5, 2025, almost 11 months before Plaintiff filed this federal action.
Additionally, the state action is procedurally more developed, with dispositive summary
judgment motions pending before the state court and a hearing scheduled for February
13, 2026.
Although the Court harbors no actual bias or prejudice toward any party and has
no reason to believe that it cannot preside fairly and impartially over this matter, out of an
abundance of caution, the undersigned concludes that recusal is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. § 455(a) to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Under § 455(a), what “matters is
not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance.” Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick,
Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., 956 F.3d 1228, 1239 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994)).
Accordingly, the Motion [Doc. No. 9] is GRANTED to that extent. The Clerk of
Court is directed to reassign this case to another United States District Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of January 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01571-D Document 11 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 2