The Elephant In The Room
The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a litigant’s third motion to recuse a trial judge in an action filed against former counsel
In these motions, Mr. Halliburton makes several claims of bias, including Judge Higgins referring to him as “the elephant in the room” due to his status as pro se, Judge Higgins’ disregard of documents he had filed prior to a hearing, and a litany of other allegations regarding his criminal cases and the respective trial and appellate courts handling those cases. Id. at *1-3. The motions further questioned Judge Higgins’ motives with regard to actions and rulings that were made in her capacity as the judge presiding over this case. Id.
The last motion was filed after the judge decided to dismiss the case but prior to the entry of the order
On August 23, 2023, Judge Higgins entered an order denying Mr. Halliburton’s third motion to recuse. Mr. Halliburton timely filed an interlocutory appeal as of right from Judge Higgins’ order denying recusal, pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B.
The court here
Mr. Halliburton’s appeal concerning the denial of his third motion for recusal presents no reason for recusal specifically related to Judge Higgins’ actions other than the fact that Judge Higgins has ruled against him on certain issues, that he is unhappy with a number of Judge Higgins’ rulings, and that Judge Higgins allegedly made mistakes of fact and law to his detriment to support those adverse rulings. Adverse rulings and a litigant’s resultant unhappiness with the rulings, even if the trial court’s rulings are erroneous and numerous, are insufficient, without more, to justify recusal. We do not hold that numerous events occurring during trial court proceedings can never rise to the level of perceived bias but, instead, that Mr. Halliburton has not proven bias by Judge Higgins that is so pervasive such that it would deny Mr. Halliburton a fair trial. See McKenzie, 2014 WL 575908, at *3. Many of Mr. Halliburton’s concerns regarding Judge Higgins’ “appearance of impropriety” involve the merits of the underlying trial court proceedings. These concerns regarding Judge Higgins’ ruling would be better addressed in any appeal that may result from the underlying proceedings. Mr. Halliburton has failed to produce evidence that would prompt a person of ordinary prudence in Judge Higgins’ position, with knowledge of all facts known to Judge Higgins, to find a “reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality.” See Adams v. Dunavant, – – S.W.3d – – , No. W2023-00304-SC-T10B-CV, 2023 WL 4676073, at *5 (Tenn. July 21, 2023). Therefore, we find no error in Judge Higgins’ denial of Mr. Halliburton’s motion for recusal.
(Mike Frisch)