The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
Angela Debose,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:25-cv-828-WFJ-AAS
Florida Polytechnic University
Board of Trustees,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification. Dkt. 26. In pertinent
part, she argues the undersigned has engaged in “judicial protectionism” by
remanding a related case to State Court after terminating defendant judges based on
judicial immunity (Case No. 8:25-cv-400 at Dkts. 19, 23). Id. at 3–4. She also argues
the Court’s rulings in this case show partiality. Id. at 4–5. Specifically, Plaintiff
challenges the Court denying her motion for default judgment (Dkt. 13),
notwithstanding the Court (1) granting Defendant’s motion for extension of time to
answer (Dkts. 5, 6), and (2) ordering Plaintiff to show cause why her present
complaint is not subject to the bar order entered in Case No. 8:21-cv-2127, Dkt. 81
at 15–16 (Dkt. 15).
A district court judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). He shall
disqualify himself “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,
or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” §
455(b)(1). “Ordinarily, a judge’s rulings in the same or a related case may not serve
as the basis for a recusal motion.” McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674,
678 (11th Cir. 1990). “The judge’s bias must be personal and extrajudicial.” Id. “An
exception to this general rule occurs when the movant demonstrates ‘pervasive bias
and prejudice.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Here, none of Plaintiff’s alleged bases for the undersigned’s recusal involve
either personal bias toward a party or personal knowledge of facts in this case. See
§ 455(b)(1). Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s rulings in this case and Case No.
8:25-cv-400. Dkt. 26 at 3–5. These are judicial decisions that are not indicative of
pervasive bias and prejudice, and do not serve as bases for recusal. See, e.g.,
McWhorter, 906 F.2d at 678.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification, Dkt. 26, is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 18, 2025.
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Counsel of Record
Plaintiff, pro se