Case: 14-40994 Document: 00513046685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-40994 FILED
Summary Calendar May 18, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
ODA GARCIA,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
CITY OF LAREDO, A Home Rule City; HECTOR GONZALEZ, Official
Capacity; OSCAR PEREZ, Official Capacity; CYNTHIA COLLAZO, Official
Capacity; MONICA FLORES, Official Capacity; RAUL CASSO, Official
Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:14-CV-140
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Oda Garcia appeals the denial of her request for a preliminary
injunction. In September of 2014, Garcia filed a motion to recuse Judge
Saldana, alleging that the judge’s husband works for a defendant in the case.
This motion remains pending in the district court, and we previously denied
Garcia’s motion to recuse Judge Saldana presented to our court because such
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 14-40994 Document: 00513046685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2015
No. 14-40994
a ruling would be premature. Garcia v. City of Laredo, Case No. 14-40994 (5th
Cir. Nov. 17, 2014). We cannot determine from the record why no ruling has
issued yet.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge “shall disqualify [herself] in any
proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and
also where her spouse “[i]s known by the judge to have an interest that could
be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
& (b)(5)(iii). The issue of recusal can affect rulings issued by the judge. See
Patterson v. Mobil Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 485 (5th Cir. 2003) (explaining
circumstances under which reversal or vacation of orders entered by judge who
should have recused is appropriate).
Because the district court has not yet addressed the motion, we lack the
basis to determine whether Judge Saldana should recuse herself from the case
or whether recusal would affect the validity of the district court’s decision
denying injunctive relief. We conclude that the district court should address
the motion to recuse before we consider the earlier order. Accordingly, we
REMAND the case to the district court for the limited purpose of considering
the outstanding motion. Once that issue is resolved, this appeal will be
returned to active status at which time Garcia may also request permission to
file supplemental briefing.
2