Jeffries v. FedEx et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
DONALD JEFFRIES,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDEX,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00358-DKW-KJM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECUSAL
On May 21, 2024, continuing a bombardment of frivolous filings, Plaintiff
Donald Jeffries moved for recusal of the undersigned, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 455.1 Dkt. No. 80. 	According to Jeffries, the undersigned should
contemplate recusal “based on the serious allegations against Magistrate Judge
Kenneth J. Mansfield and the need to uphold judicial integrity.” 	Id. at 1.
Obviously, the “allegations” against the assigned Magistrate Judge have nothing to
do with the undersigned, and thus provide no basis for recusal. 	As for the “need
to uphold judicial integrity”, liberally construing Jeffries’ uncounseled motion, he
appears to contend that the undersigned has failed to “acknowledge[e]” a “formal
letter” he sent on May 11, 2024 and a “supplemental memorandum” he submitted
1 28 U.S.C. Section 455(a) provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably
questioned.”
Case 1:23-cv-00358-DKW-KJM Document 81 Filed 05/23/24 Page 1 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

2
on May 17, 2024. 	Id. 	Jeffries also asserts that the undersigned’s initials on court
documents “suggests a potential conflict of interest.” 	Id. at 3.
Jeffries’ assertions are, of course, absurd. 	The undersigned’s (and the
Magistrate Judge’s) initials on court documents merely identify the judicial
officers assigned to this case. 	As such, they facilitate public scrutiny. 	As for
Jeffries’ May 2024 filings, the reason the undersigned has not addressed them is
that they do not concern anything pending before the undersigned.2 The May 11,
2024 “formal letter”, Dkt. No. 78, which was received by the Court on May 13,
2024, requested a correction of court minutes for a proceeding before the
Magistrate Judge. 	Therefore, the letter is properly before the Magistrate Judge,
given that the undersigned could have no awareness whether the minutes
accurately “capture” the exchange between the Magistrate Judge and Jeffries, as he
contends. 	The May 17, 2024 “supplemental memorandum”, Dkt. No. 79,
meanwhile, concerns Jeffries’ motion for recusal of the Magistrate Judge, i.e., a
motion not directed at the undersigned.
2 And, even if the filings did concern the undersigned, given that they were received, at most,
within the last 10 days, there would have been no reason to “acknowledge[e]” them beyond
docketing the same, which has been done.
Case 1:23-cv-00358-DKW-KJM Document 81 Filed 05/23/24 Page 2 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

3
In this light, there is nothing approaching cause for recusal. 	Accordingly,
Jeffries’ instant motion for recusal, Dkt. No. 80, is frivolous and is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2024 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Donald Jeffries v. Fedex; Civil No. 23-00358 DKW-KJM; ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR RECUSAL
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00358-DKW-KJM Document 81 Filed 05/23/24 Page 3 of 3
PageID.<pageID>