Syreeta LaShawn McNeal v. Vera L. Calvin, et al.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint that various Defendants revealed her private information and defamed her by calling her a “fake attorney,” among other things. The facts relayed by the Court about Plaintiff’s disciplinary history—all matters of public record and permissible to consider on a motion to dismiss, Stahl, 327 F.3d at 700—are relevant to the viability of Plaintiff’s claims in that they show that certain information was not private, see, e.g., Doc. [318] at 29, and they undermine the plausibility of Plaintiff’s allegations of ‘actual malice,’ see id. at 36-37. The Court thus declines to strike the references to Plaintiff’s disciplinary history, as they are relevant to the disposition of her claims. For related reasons, Plaintiff also seeks to disqualify and recuse the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Doc. [323] at 7. “By independently introducing derogatory information unrelated to the pleadings,” Plaintiff argues, “the Court has [d]eparted from its neutral adjudicative role; [c]reated the appearance of partiality; [and] [u]ndermined public confidence in the fairness of the proceedings.” Id.