DAVID BOWIE v. DARREL VANNOY WARDEN LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY (2026)

I disagree with the majority's decision in this matter. As it concerns the timeliness of the motion to recuse Judge Ray, 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 Bowie's post-conviction proceedings such that the 2026 lawsuit does not warrant the recusal of Judge Ray. AG Murrill herself is not enrolled in the case, and up until the recusal proceedings, all matters were handled by special assistant attorneys general from Taylor Porter, not employees of AG Murrill. But perhaps most importantly, AG Murrill's office is only involved in Bowie's case to assist the District Attorney who retains supervision and control of the matter on behalf of the state. These factors weigh heavily 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.

GUIDRY, J., would grant and assigns reasons.