batten recusal order

8/3/2019 Batten Recusal Order

1/4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

JOSEPH LOWERY, et aI., ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE)NATHAN DEAL, in his official ) NUMBER 1: ll-cv-974 -TCBcapacity as Governor of the State ) of Georgia, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for recusal [12]. In this action,Plaintiffs challenge the incorporation of several municipalities in Fultonand DeKalb Counties, including the City of Sandy Springs, on the groundthat the incorporation of those municipalities diluted their voting rights inviolation of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and FifteenthAmendments. They request, inter alia, that the Court declare the citycharters of each ofthe challenged municipalities null and void.

Case 1:11-cv-00974-TCB Document 13 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 4


2/4

In their motion for recusal, Plaintiffs invoke 28 U.S.C. 4ss(a), which provides that "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge ofthe United Statesshall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality mightreasonably be questioned." They contend that the undersigned has anapparent bias because he has a personal connection with Sandy Springs andtherefore has an interest in Sandy Springs remaining a municipality. Theyfurther contend that the Court's January 6, 2012 order, which directedDefendant to file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss, is a "rathercurious order" that demonstrates actual bias because it allowed Defendantan opportunity to cure any deficiencies in its original brief in support of itsmotion to dismiss. Both of Plaintiffs' contentions lack merit.

Plaintiffs err in their contention that the undersigned should recusebecause he resides in Sandy Springs and has "invested a non-trivial amountof his personal time and energy into the community." (PIs.' Mot. at 7.)

First, neither the undersigned nor any of his family members hasresided in Sandy Springs since March 2008 , and the undersigned has no"continuing attachment" to Sandy Springs. I t is true that in 2007 theundersigned gave a five-minute speech to a group of students at RiverwoodHigh School. This lone event is the only "personal time" or "energy" that

2



3/4

the undersigned has ever "invested" in Sandy Springs. And contrary to the newspaper article cited by Plaintiffs, the undersigned did not receive anyaward at the event. Nor did the undersigned even speak to any of the otherspeakers or honorees (if there were any honorees; the undersigned does notrecall) at the event, including Sandy Springs Mayor Eva Galambos, whomthe undersigned does not personally know. For all of these reasons,Plaintiffs' contention that there is an appearance of impropriety because ofthe undersigned's "attachment" to Sandy Springs is meritless.

With respect to Plaintiffs' second contention, there was nothing"curious" or "unusual" about the Court's January 6 order directing the Stateto file a reply brief and include therein answers to three questions posed bythe Court. I t is not uncommon for the Court to direct a movant who has notfiled a reply brief to do so and to include therein answers to questions ofimportance to the Court.

Plaintiffs state on page eleven of their motion that "[a]bsent theCourt's apparent attachment to Sandy Springs," the interpretation of theCourt's order must be that "the Court, realizing the import of this case,wanted to be sure that all the relevant issues were vetted by both parties,and thus, the Court could then make its decision based on a full exploration

3



4/4

of the law." As shown hereinabove, the undersigned has no attachment toSandy Springs; therefore, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the correctinterpretation of the motive behind the Court's entry of its January 6 orderwas its "desire to be sure that all the relevant issues were vetted by bothparties, and thus, the Court could then make its decision based on a fullexploration of the law."

Because both of Plaintiffs' contentions in support of their motion forrecusallack merit, this is not a proceeding in which the undersigned's"impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. 4ss(a).Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion for recusal [12] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of February, 2012.

Timothy C. Batten, Sr.United States District Judge

4


batten recusal order

Documents