THOMAS v. JAMES et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
LARRY THOMAS, JR., 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	:
: 	CASE NO.: 	7:25-CV-00117-WLS
RON JAMES and DYLAN GROVES, 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER
Plaintiff Larry Thomas Jr. moves to have the undersigned removed from this case
under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). (Doc. 4.) Thomas also petitions the Court to issue a writ of
mandamus directing itself to rule on his motion to remove the undersigned. (Doc. 12.) Finally,
Thomas moves to amend his complaint. (Doc. 17.) For the reasons discussed below Thomas’s
motion to disqualify the undersigned, (Doc. 4), is denied, his motion for a writ of mandamus
(Doc. 12) is denied as moot, and his motion to amend the complaint, (Doc. 17), is denied as
moot.
I. 	THE M OTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE SANDS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Thomas alleges that Judges Sands appears to
be biased against him because he denied Thomas’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(the “IFP Motion”). But as the Court explained in its prior orders, Thomas’s affidavit
contained insufficient information for the Court to make a finding of poverty. (Doc. 3; Doc.
6.) According to his affidavit in his first IFP Motion, Thomas has no income, assets, expenses,
or debts. (Doc. 3 at 1.) Because his assertions were facially implausible, the Court denied the
IFP Motion without prejudice. (Id.) The Court denied Thomas’s second IFP Motion because
he again provided insufficient information for the Court to make a finding of poverty. (Doc.
6 at 2.) Thomas simply failed to establish that he was unable to pay the filing fee, and the Court
Case 7:25-cv-00117-WLS Document 19 Filed 09/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
ruled accordingly. The mere fact that the undersigned ruled against Thomas on his IFP
Motions does not suggest that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Thomas also claims that the undersigned appears to be biased against him because he
refused to report Chief Judge Gardner “for committing fraud on the court” in three other
cases Thomas brought in this district. Thomas claims that in one of those cases, he named the
undersigned as a defendant, which led the undersigned to recuse himself. (Doc. 4 at 3.)
Thomas claims that although the undersigned recused himself, he allowed Chief Judge
Gardner to preside over the case even though she was also listed as a defendant. (Id.) But this
Court does not have supervisory authority of another district court judge and cannot control
Judge Gardner’s cases. Thomas’s argument is therefore frivolous, and the undersigned’s
impartially cannot reasonably be questioned in these circumstances. The motion for recusal,
(Doc. 4), is therefore denied.
II. 	THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF M ANDAMUS
Thomas petitions the Court to issue to itself a writ of mandamus directing itself to rule
on his pending motion for recusal. (Doc. 12.) The petition is improper. Mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy that a higher court may use to compel a lower court or officer to perform
a clear legal duty. It is not a mechanism by which a court directs itself to act. Courts have no
authority to grant mandamus relief if the petitioner has another adequate legal remedy. See
United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v. Helvering, 301 U.S. 540, 544 (1937); Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(b)
(“The writs of scire facias and mandamus are abolished. Relief previously available through
them may be obtained by appropriate action or motion under these rules.”). In any event,
because the Court has herein ruled on Thomas’s recusal motion, his petition for writ of
mandamus, (Doc. 12), is denied as moot.
III. 	THE M OTION TO AMEND THE C OMPLAINT
Thomas moves to amend his complaint. (Doc. 17.) A party may amend his pleading
once as a matter of course no later than 21 days after serving it, or “if the pleading is one to
which 	a 	responsive 	pleading 	is 	required, 	21 	days 	after 	service 	of 	a 	responsive
pleading . . . whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Here, no proof of service has been
filed. Because the complaint has not yet been served, Thomas may amend the complaint once
Case 7:25-cv-00117-WLS Document 19 Filed 09/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
without the Court’s leave. Since the Court’s approval is unnecessary, the motion to amend the
complaint, (Doc. 17), is denied as moot.
IV. 	D ISPOSITION
Thomas’s motion to disqualify the undersigned, (Doc. 4), is DENIED, his motion for
a writ of mandamus, (Doc. 12), is DENIED AS MOOT, and his motion to amend the
complaint, (Doc. 17), is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of September, 2026.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:25-cv-00117-WLS Document 19 Filed 09/17/26 Page 3 of 3