Lawrence v. Se. La. Legal Servs. Corp.

SHAWNDRIKA LAWRENCE v. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-1985 SECTION D (3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

February 4, 2021

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Southeast Louisiana Legal Services Corporation's Motion to Dismiss.¹ Before the Court is also Plaintiff Shawndrika Lawrence's Motion for Reconsideration, Modification of the Court's Scheduling Order, and for Recusal of the Judge and Case Manager.² Plaintiff's Motion is opposed.³ Plaintiff also separately file a Motion seeking recusal of the District Judge.⁴ After careful consideration of the parties' memoranda, the applicable law, and the record, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and denies Plaintiff's Motions in their entirety.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case is Plaintiff Shandrika Lawrence's fifth lawsuit arising from the same facts involving a housing matter in St. Bernard Parish. According to Plaintiff's Complaint, in April 2015 she entered into an attorney-client agreement withSoutheast Louisiana Legal Services Corporation ("SLLS"), under which SLLS agreed to provide legal assistance to Lawrence in connection with an "ongoing mold related housing dispute that occurred during [Plaintiff's] tenancy and occupancy . . . at . . . 2817 Packenham Dr. in Chalmette, Louisiana."⁵ On April 13, 2016, Hannah Adams of SLLS filed a state-court Petition on behalf of Lawrence in the 34th Judicial District Court for St. Bernard Parish against Center Properties, L.L.C., seeking damages in connection with Lawrence's tenancy at 2817 Packenham Drive.⁶ Plaintiff alleges that Adams made various false statements in the original Petition,⁷ and that Adams and opposing counsel made false representations to the state court.⁸ On January 23, 2019, Lawrence terminated her attorney-client agreement with SLLS and proceeded with the litigation pro se.⁹ She soon after filed an Amended and Supplemental Petition, which purported to bring various federal claims.¹⁰

Plaintiff now brings suit against SLLS. In her Complaint, Lawrence alleges that she has been diagnosed with an unnamed disability, and that SLLS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 through various acts and omissions.¹¹ Her contention seems to be that because she is disabled, and because SLLS receives federal funds, SLLS violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Actby failing to adequately represent her. Lawrence also brings legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims against SLLS.¹²

This is not Plaintiff's first federal litigation arising out of the same operative facts. On March 7, 2019 Plaintiff attempted to remove her state-court litigation from the 34th Judicial District Court to the Eastern District of Louisiana.¹³ Because a Plaintiff may not remove his or her own state-court suit, this Court remanded the case to state court.¹⁴ Plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed her state-court claims.¹⁵ On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court against Center Properties and various others associated with Plaintiff's brief residence at Packenham Drive.¹⁶ This Court found that Plaintiff's federal claims were time barred, declined supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims, and dismissed the case.¹⁷ Plaintiff also filed a previous suit against SLLS on December 30, 2019 arising out of the same facts in which she alleged claims nearly identical to the state-law claims she alleges here.¹⁸ That case was dismissed as the Court found it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims.¹⁹ Lawrence has also filed suit against the St. Bernard Parish Clerk of Court for discrimination and defamation arising out of events surrounding her state-court lawsuit.²⁰ That suit remains pending before this Court.

SLLS moves to dismiss Plaintiff's lawsuit.²¹ SLLS argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction, and that in any event, Plaintiff's claims are barred by preemption. Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion. Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss,²² and the Court ordered that Plaintiff could respond anytime on or before January 7, 2021.²³ Rather than file an Opposition, Plaintiff moved to Amend her Complaint.²⁴ Because the Motion lacked a proposed pleading, the Court denied that Motion without Prejudice,²⁵ giving Plaintiff until January 18, 2021 to file a Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint with a proposed pleading attached. Again, rather than do so, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider, to Amend the Scheduling Order, and for Disqualification of the Presiding Judge.²⁶ Plaintiff argues the Court was incorrect to deny her Motion, in part because she allegedly did not have access to the scheduling order. Plaintiff further argues that the Presiding Judge and Case Manager should be recused due to bias arising out rulings on her earlier suit against Center Properties. Defendant has filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration and Recusal, in which SLLS argues that Plaintiff has not offered legitimate reasons for recusal, reconsideration, or modification of the scheduling order.²⁷ Plaintiff has also filed a separate Motion to Disqualification of the Presiding Judge.²⁸ Plaintiff largely reiterates the arguments made in her formerMotion, and seeks to have at least part of the Motion referred to Chief Judge Brown for consideration.²⁹

II. ANALYSIS

A. Recusal

The Court first addresses Plaintiff's Motions insomuch as they seek recusal of the Presiding Judge and Case Manager. Plaintiff moves for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. The Court examines each statute in turn.

1. 28 U.S.C. § 144

The first statute Lawrence relies on, 28 U.S.C. § 144, provides:

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.³⁰

Plaintiff's Motion does not satisfy the requirements of Section 144. First, Lawrence has failed to file a "sufficient affidavit."³¹ "A legally sufficient affidavitmust (1) state facts with particularity; (2) state facts that, if true, would convince a reasonable person that a bias exists; and (3) state facts that show the bias is personal, as opposed to judicial, in nature."³² Plaintiff submits no affidavit. Although she suggests she did not do so because she is indigent, and "if granted time to retrieve the monies to pay for an affidavit"³³ she would do so, nothing in her motion suggests that an affidavit would be legally sufficient. Specifically, none of the allegations that Plaintiff makes in her Motion would convince a reasonable person that a bias exists. And even if Plaintiff's allegations did demonstrate bias, they would not show bias arising from an extrajudicial source. To the contrary, Plaintiff's complaints about the presiding judge arise solely from the management and decisions in the cases Plaintiff has filed before the Court.

Moreover, the statute requires that any affidavit "shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel stating that it is made in good faith."³⁴ Plaintiff attaches no certificate from counsel of record. "[C]ourts have held that pro se litigant may not obtain disqualification of a presiding judge . . . under § 144 because a pro se litigant cannot meet the plain language of the statute requiring" such a certificate.³⁵ Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, has not met this requirement of Section 144.

2. 28 U.S.C. § 455

Lawrence next moves for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. The Court first addresses Lawrence's request that this matter be referred to Chief Judge Brown forconsideration. Unlike Section 144, Section 455 does not require the Judge to transfer the Motion for consideration once the Court has found the recusal motion legally sufficient.³⁶ Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has held that "no negative inference can be drawn from the fact that the judge to whom a motion to recuse is directed rules on motion."³⁷ The Fifth Circuit has further held that referral "is not to be encouraged" and that "recusal motions should only be transferred in unusual circumstances"³⁸ as "[t]he challenged judge is most familiar with the alleged bias or conflict of interest" and because of concerns of "administrative inconvenience and delay."³⁹ The Court finds no unusual circumstances here that would merit referral to a different Section of this Court. It therefore finds that this Motion is properly before Section D.

The statute under which Lawrence moves, 28 U.S.C. § 455, provides that: "[a]ny . . . judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."⁴⁰ It further requires recusal of a judge "[w]where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding."⁴¹ When determining whether to disqualify himself or herself, a Court must consider "whether a reasonable and objective person, knowing all of the facts, would harbor doubts concerning the judge's impartiality."⁴²

The Court does not find recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 mandated or appropriate. The Court finds that a "reasonable and objective person" would not "harbor doubts concerning the judge's impartiality" in this case.⁴³ Moreover, the gist of Plaintiff's Motion seeking recusal is that she believes the Judge erred in her rulings in a separate...