Fulton County Superior Court

***EFILED***NY
Date: 7/9/2024 4:02 PM

RK Che Alexander, Clerk

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

STATE OF GEORGIA

Wi CASE NO.: 228C183572

DEAMONTE KENDRICK,
JEFFREY WILLIAMS,
KAHLIEFF ADAMS,
RODALIUS RYAN,
SHANNON STILLWELL,
QUAMARVIOUS NICHOLS,
MARQUAVIUS HUEY,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY FULTON COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES FROM RULING ON RECUSAL OF CHIEF
JUDGE GLANVILLE

This case was randomly assigned to this Court to consider certain Motions to

Recuse Judge Glanville from further proceedings in the case. On July 2, 2024,

Defendant Deamonte Kendrick filed a Motion to Disqualify Fulton County Superior

Court Judges From Ruling on Recusal Motion of Chief Judge Glanville. (Kendrick,

Dkt. 253)
A motion to recuse must be timely and accompanied by an affidavit stating the

facts and reasons that bias exists and recusal is necessary. U.S.C.R. 25.1, 25.2.

Importantly, “allegations consisting of bare conclusions and opinions shall not be

legally sufficient to support the motion or warrant further proceedings.” U.S.C.R.

25.2.
 When a judge assigned to a case is presented with a recusal motion and
an accompanying affidavit, the judge shall temporarily cease to act upon
the merits of the matter and determine immediately: (1) whether the
motion is timely; (2) whether the affidavit is legally sufficient; and (3)
whether the affidavit sets forth facts that, if proved, would warrant the
assigned judge's recusal from the case. If all three criteria are met,
another judge shall be assigned to hear the motion to recuse.

Mondy v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc., 303 Ga. 764, 766 (2018) (internal

quotations and citations omitted); see also U.S.C.R. 25.3; Horn v. Shepherd, 294 Ga.

468, 471 (2014). Assessing whether these three criteria are met does not involve an

exercise of discretion by the judge whose recusal is sought; but is a question of law to

be determined by the assigned judge. See U.S.C.R. 25.3; Mayor & Aldermen of the

City of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114, 120-21 (2012).

Assuming without deciding that Defendant Kendrick’s motion is timely, it is

not supported by an affidavit of any kind, as required by Rule 25.1. Therefore, the

motion is due to be denied. See Huff v. State, 207 Ga. App. 686, 686 (1993) (finding

the trial court properly denied a motion for recusal unsupported by an affidavit

required by U.S.C.R. 25.1 and 25.2).

Defendant Kendrick’s assertion that Judicial Qualification Commission

Opinion 220 requires recusal of the entire Fulton Superior Court bench does not save

the unsupported motion. In Opinion 220, the JQC opined that “it is inappropriate for

any trial court judge to preside in any action wherein one of the parties holds a

judicial office on the same or any other court which sits in the same Circuit.” But,

Judge Glanville is neither a party nor counsel in this criminal prosecution, nor is this

a mandamus action, and Defendant Kendrick cannot make it so by filing a recusal

motion.! Furthermore, Defendant Kendrick’s motion ignores the clear directive of

Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.4. That rule directs that, in a multi-judge circuit,

like the Atlanta Judicial Circuit, a recusal “motion shall be assigned for hearing to

another judge” and the “selection shall be made by use of the circuit’s existing

random, impartial case assignment method.” U.S.C.R. 25.4(C) (emphasis added).2

Defendant Kendrick’s Motion to Disqualify the Fulton County Superior Court

Judges From Ruling on Recusal of Chief Judge Glanville lacks an affidavit and fails

to satisfy the requirements of U.S.C.R. 25.1 and 25.2. Defendant Kendrick’s asserted

basis for recusal, even if supported by an affidavit, would not warrant recusal in light

of U.S.C.R. 25.4. Therefore, the Motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of July, 2024.

ThelHonorable Rachel Krause

Fulton County Superior Court
Atlanta Judicial Circuit

Filed and served via eFileGA.

' Compare Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Dixon, 267 Ga. App. 575 (2004) and Smith
v. Guest Pond Club, Inc., 277 Ga. 143, 145 (2003), where judges were either parties
or counsel in the underlying civil case being heard by a judge in the same circuit.
"Notably, in a two-judge circuit, a recusal motion as to one judge is heard by “the other
judge[.]” U.S.C.R. 25.4(B)