From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Akers v. Weinshienk

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jun 24, 2009
327 F. App'x 811 (10th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 08-1471.

June 24, 2009.

Montgomery Carl Akers, Florence, CO, pro se.

Before HARTZ, McKAY, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.


ORDER AND JUDGMENT

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2). Therefore, this case is ordered submitted without oral argument.


This Bivens action was dismissed sua sponte by a district court judge named as a defendant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5), a judge must recuse when named as a party to a proceeding. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND this case for reassignment to a judge not named as a party in the complaint. This order neither makes nor implies any view about the appropriate disposition after reassignment.

We GRANT Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and remind him of his continuing obligation to make partial payments until the filing fee has been paid in full. We DENY all other pending motions.


Summaries of

Akers v. Weinshienk

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jun 24, 2009
327 F. App'x 811 (10th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Akers v. Weinshienk

Case Details

Full title:Montgomery Carl AKERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Zita L. WEINSHIENK; Boyd N…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Jun 24, 2009

Citations

327 F. App'x 811 (10th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Akers v. Weinshienk

Because Weinshienk was named as a defendant in Akers' complaint, however, we reversed and remanded the case…

Akers v. Weinshienk

In two recent unpublished orders, we explicitly informed Judge Weinshienk that this provision requires her…