Hutchison v. Newark Police Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RANDALL TYLER HUTCHISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:15-cv-3057
JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE
Magistrate Judge Vascura
OPINION AND ORDER
On February 2, 2018, this Court, through the then-assigned Judge, adopted an
R&R (Doc. 34) that recommended granting summary judgment to the last remaining
defendant in this pro se, in forma pauperis, prisoner litigation. (Doc. 35). Consistent
with that, the Clerk then entered judgment terminating the matter. (Doc. 36). But
some seven years later, the plaintiff, Randall Hutchison, reappeared, asking to re-
open the case in light of newly discovered evidence. (See Docs. 37, 38). The Court
denied that request, as well. (Doc. 41). Ten months passed, and Hutchison filed the
motion at issue here, a motion to “recuse all judges.” (Doc. 43). The two-page
handwritten motion is charitably described as rambling and incoherent. From the
title it appears that Hutchison wants “all judges” to recuse, but in the motion itself
he does not specify the relief he seeks, nor does he say what would warrant such broad
relief. And, in any event, the case is closed, so it is not clear what a recusal would
accomplish. Accordingly, for the reasons briefly set forth below, the Court DENIES
the motion to recuse all judges (Doc. 43).
Case: 2:15-cv-03057-DRC-CMV Doc #: 46 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
This case started in 2015 when Hutchison, who was incarcerated at the Licking
County Justice Center, sued various Newark, Ohio, 1 law enforcement personnel,
along with the Newark Police Department, claiming excessive force and requesting
$3.5 million. (Doc. 5). In response to a motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed all
defendants except for one of the officers, Doug Bline. (Doc. 15). A while later, though,
Bline moved for summary judgment, (Doc. 25), which the Court ultimately granted,
(Doc. 35). As that was the last remaining defendant, the Clerk entered judgment.
(Doc. 36).
That seemed to be the end of things. Hutchison did not appeal. Nor did he seek
post-judgment relief, whether by way of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. At
least he did not do so for roughly seven years. But that changed in July 2025 when
Hutchison filed two motions: (1) a combined motion to appoint counsel and amend
the judgment (Doc. 37), and (2) a motion for discovery (Doc. 38). While Hutchison
pointed to Rule 59 and 60 in support of his first request, the Court concluded that
neither worked. (Order, Doc. 41). A party must move under Rule 59, the Court noted,
within 28 days of the entry of judgment. (Id. at #272); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). Seven
years exceeded that. Turning to Rule 60, the Court concluded that none of the six
subsections to that rule applied. (Id. at #273); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(6). Beyond
that, as the Court was not re-opening the case, Hutchison’s motion for discovery also
failed.
1 Newark is the county seat of Licking County.
Case: 2:15-cv-03057-DRC-CMV Doc #: 46 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
That brings us to the present motion. Roughly five months after the Court
denied Hutchison’s most-recent motions, he filed a motion to recuse all judges. (Doc.
43). There he claims that the Court has a “clear conflict.” (Id. at #278). It appears that
conflict arises from the fact that Hutchison is a “NATO Asset,” while this is a “Jeffrey
Epstein and Les Wexner backed federal court.” (Id.). So the Court is “clearly trying
to hide, conceal and destroy evidence.” (Id.). Hutchison goes on to claim that he is
“way above the pay grade of Pres. Trump and U.S. Attorney General Blanche.” (Id.
at #279). Despite that, though, he has “sat in prison for 11 years for crimes by Federal
Judges and United States Attorneys.” (Id.). If the Court needs any further evidence,
he says, it should simply watch “the TV show ‘The Agency 2024,’” as the show is
“about U.S. Rep. Illhan Omar and [Hutchison].” (Id.).
After Hutchison filed his recusal motion, the then-assigned judge recused for
reasons unrelated to that motion. So, after random reassignment, the action recently
ended up before the undersigned, with the motion to recuse “all judges” still pending.
Recusals in federal court are generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. That
statute requires a judge to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 2 “What matters is not the reality of
2 District judges are also subject to 28 U.S.C. § 144. But recusal under that statute arises
only when a party has filed “a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the
matter is pending has a personal bias.” Hutchison cannot be relying on that statute here,
though, for two reasons. First, he has not filed an affidavit. Second, this statute provides for
recusal only of the judge hearing the case. But Hutchison wants recusal of “all judges.”
Moreover, if all he seeks is the recusal of the then-assigned judge, that has already occurred
for unrelated reasons. (Doc. 45). So, understood that way, the motion is moot.
Case: 2:15-cv-03057-DRC-CMV Doc #: 46 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
bias or prejudice, but its appearance.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548
(1994) (citation modified). This is an objective standard that asks “what a reasonable
person knowing all the relevant facts would think about the impartiality of the judge.”
In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., No. 19-3935, 2019 WL 7482137, at *1 (6th Cir.
Oct. 10, 2019) (quoting Roberts v. Bailar, 625 F.2d 125, 129 (6th Cir. 1980)). But the
category “all relevant facts” doesn’t mean “whatever a party happens to allege.” That
is because “[r]ecusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous
speculation.” United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting
In re United States, 666 F.2d 690, 694 (1st Cir. 1981)).
It is that last part of the analytical framework where Hutchison stumbles
badly. As noted above, his claims of conflict rest on allegations that go beyond mere
irrationality into the realm of the fantastical or delusional. In short, Hutchison has
failed to provide any rational, coherent account under which “all judges” would be
required to recuse. And just to be clear, he has also not identified any reason why the
undersigned, personally, should recuse, nor is the Court aware of any such reason.
The first the undersigned heard of Hutchison was when this case was reassigned. In
sum, given his failure to provide any factual basis for either the undersigned, or “all
judges,” to recuse, his motion fails as a matter of law.
Moreover, even were that not so, his motion would fail given the procedural
posture here. As noted, this case was closed nearly eight years ago. Other than
Hutchison’s motion to recuse, there are no motions pending. The Court can conceive
of no reason why a judge, let alone all judges, would need to recuse going forward in
Case: 2:15-cv-03057-DRC-CMV Doc #: 46 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
a closed matter. So for that reason, as well, the motion fails. To be sure, if he were
instead seeking to undo the previous judgment under Rule 60(b) on the grounds that
the assigned judge should have recused, things may be different. See Liljeberg v.
Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 862–65 (1988) (discussing how a
demand for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 can in some circumstances fall within Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)). But Hutchison never invokes that rule by name, does not ask to
reopen the judgment, and nothing about his motion is directed at the then-assigned
judge in particular. So, even given the liberal construction afforded to pro se litigants,
the Court cannot read his motion as arising under Rule 60(b)(6).
CONCLUSION
In short, Hutchison’s motion fails both procedurally and on the merits.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to recuse all judges (Doc. 43). Moreover,
as this case is closed, the Court instructs the Clerk’s Office not to accept any further
filings in this matter other than a motion under Rule 60(b) or a notice of appeal of
this Order. This case remains closed.
SO ORDERED.
October 13, 2026
DATE 	DOUGLAS R. COLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
GLAS R. COLE
ED STATES DISTRICT J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	J	JU
Case: 2:15-cv-03057-DRC-CMV Doc #: 46 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>