Henderson v. Bank United

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20265
(Summary Calendar)
R. SCOTT HENDERSON, Etc.; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
BANK UNITED, formerly known as Bank United
of Texas FSB,
Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALAN WILLIAM WHITELAW,
Third Party Defendant-Cross Defendant-Appellant,
versus
FIRST PROSPERITY BANK,
Third Party Defendant-Cross Claimant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
(H-97-CV-3470)
December 15, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Allan William Whitelaw (“Whitelaw”), appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Bank United. Whitelaw argues that the district judge should
have recused himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455 because of his knowledge of Whitelaw’s criminal
conduct learned from a related criminal case.
Generally, to warrant recusal, a judge’s personal knowledge of evidentiary facts must be
extrajudicial. Conkling v. Turner, 138 F.3d 577, 592-93 (5th Cir. 1998). However, opinions formed
by a judge based on events occurring during ongoing proceedings are insufficient bases for recusal
“‘unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible.’” Id. at 593 (quoting United States v. Landerman, 109 F.3d 1053, 1066 (5th Cir. 1997)).
We find Whitelaw’s recusal arguments to be meritless and therefore AFFIRM the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Bank United.
AFFIRMED.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2