Hardy v. Whitaker et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY HARDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WHITAKER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-11270
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL
(ECF NO. 181)
Plaintiff Gregory Hardy, proceeding pro se, sues law enforcement
officials with the Flint Police Department and the Genessee County Jail under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Thomas L. Ludington referred
the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). ECF No. 10. Hardy now moves for the undersigned to recuse
herself because of alleged personal bias or prejudice. ECF No. 181. His
motion for recusal lacks merit.
A judge is presumed to be impartial, and a party moving for recusal bears
the burden of showing that the judge should be disqualified. 	Scott v. Metro
Health Corp., 234 F. App’x 341, 352 (6th Cir. 2001); Burley v. Gagacki, 834 F.3d
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 190, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 4

2
606, 616 (6th Cir. 2016). Recusal is an objective standard and is not based on
the subjective viewpoint of the party. 	Wheeler v. Southland Corp., 875 F.2d
1246, 1251 (6th Cir. 1989). Disqualification is required “[w]here [a Judge] has a
personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). A judge is
not disqualified when the alleged bias emanates from the proceeding
themselves. 	Wheeler, 875 F.2d at 1252. Thus, the “critical test is whether the
alleged bias ‘stem[s] from an extrajudicial source and result[s] in an opinion on
the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation
in the case.’” 	Id. (quoting United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583
(1965)).
Hardy’s claims of bias emanate entirely from the proceedings themselves.
He alleges that the Court has made errors, has been rude to him, and looked at
him sadistically. ECF No. 31. These allegations fail to show that recusal is
warranted.
First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a
bias or partiality motion…. Almost invariably, they are proper
grounds for appeal, not for recusal. Second, opinions formed by the
judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the
course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not
constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible. Thus, judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are
critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or
their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 190, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 4

3
They may do so if they reveal an opinion that derives from an
extrajudicial source; and they will do so if they reveal such a high
degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment
impossible…. Not establishing bias or partiality, however, are
expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even
anger, that are within the bounds of what imperfect men and women,
even after having been confirmed as federal judges, sometimes
display. A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration—even
a stern and short-tempered judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom
administration—remain immune.
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994) (emphasis in original).
Hardy alleges that the Court has engaged in a pattern of hostility, but the
record shows that the Court solicited the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic
to help him prosecute his case and entered orders to ensure that he obtained
usable video evidence during discovery. ECF No. 146, PageID.1480; ECF No.
162, PageID.1721-1722; ECF No. 166, PageID.1746. Hardy rejected the help of
the clinic despite admitting during an August 2025 status conference that he
needed help because he did not know the law. ECF No. 146, PageID.1483. And
despite Hardy’s pattern of clogging the docket with meritless motions, the Court
has denied defendants’ repeated requests for reimbursement of costs associated
with those filings. 	See ECF No. 146, PageID.1481-1482.
The Court thus DENIES the motion for recusal.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
Dated: November 4, 2025 	United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 190, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 4

4
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections
with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may
sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28
U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a
non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless
and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich.
LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their email
or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on
November 4, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 1:24-cv-11270-TLL-EAS ECF No. 190, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 4