ILNews

7th Circuit denies petition to remove judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a man’s petition for writ of mandamus to remove a federal judge from a case he is involved with that’s still pending in District Court. The man failed to intervene in the case and his interest in the case is too uncertain to give him the rights of a party automatically, the judges ruled Friday.

Rich Bergeron repeatedly asked U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana to recuse herself in Eppley v. Iacovelli. Plastic surgeon Dr. Barry Eppley sued former patient Lucille Iacovelli in 2009 for defamation and other claims stemming from her dissatisfaction with a face-lift he performed. Judge Barker issued a preliminary injunction ordering Iacovelli and anyone acting as her agent to remove all Internet postings that referred to the surgeon. Bergeron maintained some of those websites, so he was subject to the preliminary injunction. He didn’t remove the postings and was held in contempt and ordered to pay Eppley more than $1,700 as a sanction. Iacovelli died in August 2010, but the defamation suit remains pending, now naming her sister as the defendant.

In addition to finding that Bergeron never intervened in that defamation case and his interest in it is too uncertain to give him the rights of a party automatically, the Circuit judges addressed his desire to remove the judge from the contempt proceeding. Mandamus is a proper vehicle for removing a judge from a case on the ground that the judge’s impartiality might be questioned, as Bergeron argues, wrote Judge Richard Posner in In Re: Rich Bergeron, No. 10-3279.
 
Bergeron asked for the mandamus before Judge Barker concluded the contempt proceeding, but he didn’t ask the 7th Circuit to stay the proceeding in the District Court. Now it’s too late for the appellate court to order the judge removed from the case because she’s finished with it, Judge Posner continued.

“We could order a do-over of the contempt proceeding were this an egregious case of apparent bias … but the appearance of impropriety in this case is too attenuated to justify that extraordinary remedy.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT