TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reddy v. Jones

Thomas James REDDY Et Al., Petitioners, v. David L. JONES, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction, Et Al., Respondents

Reddy v. Jones, 419 F. Supp. 1391 (W.D.N.C. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Federal District Courts
Decided
August 12, 1976
Docket
No. C-C-76-118
Judges
McMILLAN
Citations
419 F. Supp. 1391

Opinion — McMILLAN

McMILLAN, District Judge.

A motion to disqualify the undersigned judge has been filed by Mr. League, the Assistant Attorney General handling this case. It alleges no bias or partiality on my part, but it does allege that I should disqualify myself because one of my law clerks, John Gresham, has accepted employment with lawyers representing the petitioners.

The unvaried custom which I have followed since I was first appointed has been that if a law clerk accepts future employment with a law firm, he is immediately taken off all work, conference, hearings or other activity, including the delivery of messages, in cases being tried in this court by his prospective employers. This system has produced no difficulty or complication involving any of the eight clerks who have while employed here made arrangements for future employment by law firms with cases in this court.

With respect to the racial suggestions in Mr. League’s motion, this court has been heavily supplied with racial problems since 1968, and this case is not unique in that regard. With reference to the veiled suggestion in paragraph 5 that Mr. Gresham has worked on this case or any other cases involving his prospective employers at any time since he agreed to work for them, Mr. League is mistaken about the facts; the message brought to the court by Mr. Gresham during the bond hearing dealt with a totally unrelated matter.

This court has no desire to try any case in which a conflict of interest or other basis for disqualification exists. Nevertheless, motions to disqualify should not be lightly filed; this one is not lightly considered by the court; it has no merit and is denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1977: 11980: 11983: 11985: 11986: 21989: 11995: 119772026peak 1986 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list