TATE v. VANNOY (2026)

Writ application denied.

I disagree with the majority's decision in this matter. As it concerns the timeliness of the motion to recuse Chief Judge Donald Johnson, the 2025 lawsuit accused the defendants of violating the law, while the 2026 lawsuit accused the defendants, more specifically, of violating the plaintiffs’ rights. The 2025 lawsuit sought to prevent injurious actions performed by the defendants against plaintiffs and the 2026 lawsuit sought declaratory relief after the defendants performed injurious actions. Given the aforementioned, the facts supporting recusal were known by AG Murrill when the 2025 lawsuit was filed. Therefore, I would grant the writ application and reverse the judgment granting the motion to recuse on the grounds that it was untimely filed by AG Murrill.

On the merits, there is significant distance between AG Murrill and Tate's post-conviction proceedings such that the 2026 lawsuit does not warrant the recusal of Judge Johnson. AG Murrill herself is not enrolled in the case, nor has she made an appearance in the case before the district court. These factors weigh against a finding that “there exists a substantial and objective basis that would reasonably be expected to prevent the judge from conducting any aspect of the cause in a fair and impartial manner.” La. C.C.P. art. 151(B); La. C.Cr.P. art. 671(B). I would grant the writ application.

Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket. Griffin, J., would grant for the reasons assigned by Justice Guidry. Guidry, J., would grant and assigns reasons.