# Debose v. Florida Polytechnic University Board of Trustees

> District Court, M.D. Florida · June 26, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11084884

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** June 26, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11084884

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a reasonable person would not find partiality based on unsupported, conclusory statements that “secret discussions” occurred between the defendant and the court

## Opinion text

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 second motion for disqualification, brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 144. Dkt. 34. In pertinent part, she asserts the Court
is partial because of “ex parte communications” that allegedly occurred. Id. at 6–7.
Specifically, the attached affidavit of Plaintiff’s brother states he was at the Sam M.
Gibbons United States Courthouse on June 10, 2025. Id. at 9. He saw five people he
believed to be either judges or judicial staff who are presiding over, defendants in,
or witnesses in the various cases Plaintiff and her siblings have pending in Florida.
Id. at 9–10. Affiant “suspect[s] or reasonably believe[s]” that group of people “went
to the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division location to meet with Judge
[Steven D.] Merryday and/or William F. Jung.” Id. at 10. He believes some sort of
conspiracy was entered. Id. at 12.
The affidavit attached to Plaintiff’s motion is not relevant to the present
proceeding, and is in fact pure fantasy. No serious person would consider it as bona

fide. Plaintiff has failed to show the Court has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party in this case; recusal is not justified. See § 455; § 144; Fox v.
Prudential Fin., 178 F. App’x 915, 919 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding a reasonable person

would not find partiality based on unsupported, conclusory statements that “secret
discussions” occurred between the defendant and the court); Rhodes v. MacDonald,
670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1370–72 (M.D. Ga. 2009), aff’d, 368 F. App’x 949 (11th Cir.
2010) (finding (1) the affidavit supporting the motion for recusal was insufficient

because it was not executed by the aggrieved party to the action, as required by §
144, and (2) the unsubstantiated and false accusation that the judge ex parte met with
a third party did not support recusal).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
Plaintiff’s second motion for disqualification, Dkt. 34, is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 26, 2025.
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Counsel of Record
Plaintiff, pro se

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11084884. Public record. Not legal advice.