Case 1:09-cv-00386-SEB-JMS 00711247351 Case: 09-2642 Document: Document 104 Filed: 07/21/2009 Filed 07/23/2009
Pages: 2 2 Page 1 of
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse R oom 2722 - 219 S. D earborn Street C hicago, Illinois 60604 O ffice of the C lerk Ph on e: (312) 435-5850 w w w .ca7.u scou rts.gov
ORDER: LIMITED REMAND July 21, 2009
Before ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
IN RE: LUCILLE IACOVELLI, Petitioner
No.: 09-2642
Petition for W rit of M andamus District Court No: 1:09-cv-00386-SEB-JM S District Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Petitioner Lucille Iacovelli, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court judge’s denial of her motion to have the judge recuse herself from the case. In the underlying case, Dr. Barry Eppley sued Iacovelli for defamation, trade disparagement, harassment, false light publicity, and other related claims after he performed facelift surgery on her, and, unhappy with the results, she allegedly began sending threatening emails and letters to him and his staff and posting apparently unfounded information about him and the effects of the surgery on the Internet. The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining some of the communications at issue, and the case is ongoing. Iacovelli sent a letter to the judge complaining about several developments in the case, including what she thought was the judge’s bias based on rulings against her and the judge’s service on the board of Clarian Hospital. The judge construed the letter as a motion to recuse herself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which requires recusal in any proceeding in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by an objective observer. See Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009); In re Hook, 89 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 1996). The judge denied the motion, finding that none of the reasons that Iacovelli gave for her alleged bias demonstrated an objectively reasonable basis for recusal. First, she found that Iacovelli was merely complaining about rulings against her and correctly reasoned that judicial rulings are rarely a valid basis for a recusal motion. See Collins, 554 F.3d at 697; Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 299 F.3d 635, 640 (7th Cir. 2002). - over -
Case 1:09-cv-00386-SEB-JMS 00711247351 Case: 09-2642 Document: Document 104 Filed: 07/21/2009 Filed 07/23/2009
Pages: 2 2 Page 2 of
Appeal 09-2642
Page 2
Second, the judge explained that though she is on the board of Clarian Hospital, it is “not the same board of the entities with which [Dr. Eppley] and his business allegedly have some business relationship” and that there is “no shared or common interest” between Dr. Eppley and the Clarian Hospital Board. Iacovelli filed another motion asking the judge to recuse herself in which she repeated the same concerns, and the judge issued an order denying it for the same reasons. Iacovelli now files this petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to order the judge to recuse herself from the underlying case. A petition for writ of mandamus is the correct means of reviewing the district court’s denial of Iacovelli’s motions for recusal. See O’Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975, 988 (7th Cir. 2001). At this time, however, we do not have enough information to review whether the district court judge properly denied the motions. The judge said that the Clarian Hospital Board is not the same board as the board of Clarian Health Partners, with which Dr. Eppley may have a business relationship, but she did not provide any further explanation about the relationship between the two institutions. Accordingly, we remand this case for the limited purpose of allowing the judge to provide this court with a more detailed explanation about why her service on the Clarian Hospital Board would not cause a reasonable, well-informed observer to question her impartiality. See C IR. R. 50. The judge is requested to provide a statement within 21 days of receipt of this order.
form name: c7_Order_Limited_Remand (form ID: 172)