John Wesley Patton Versus Gary Westcott, Dpsc Secretary, Warden Travis Day, Bb Sixty Rayburn Correctional Center

JOHN WESLEY PATTON NO. 25-KH-48

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

GARY WESTCOTT, DPSC SECRETARY, COURT OF APPEAL
WARDEN TRAVIS DAY, BB SIXTY RAYBURN
CORRECTIONAL CENTER STATE OF LOUISIANA

February 25, 2025

Jalisa Walker
Deputy Clerk

IN RE JOHN WESLEY PATTON

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
STEPHEN C. GREFER, DIVISION "J", NUMBER 18-7474

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT DENIED

In this pro se writ application, relator, John W. Patton, seeks review of the
district court’s December 17, 2024 denial of his motion to recuse Judge Steven C.
Grefer from presiding over relator’s application for post-conviction relief (APCR)
which he filed on October 4, 2024.1 For the reasons that follow, relator’s writ
application is denied.

Procedural Background

On April 21, 2021, a jury found relator guilty of attempted second-degree
rape, false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon, second-degree
rape, and sexual battery. This Court affirmed relator’s convictions and sentences
on December 21, 2022. State v. Patton, 22-112 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/21/22), 355
So.3d 156, writ denied, 23-00151 (La. 11/8/23), 373 So.3d 60.

This matter has a long procedural history, including several prior motions to
recuse Judge Grefer. On October 4, 2024, relator filed his fourth and current
motion to recuse Judge Grefer, along with an APCR. On December 17, 2024,
Judge Grefer denied the fourth recusal motion finding that relator “fail[ed] to cite
any new law or to allege any new facts” in support of the motion and the motion
was repetitive. Judge Grefer further found relator failed to meet his burden of
proof in establishing any of the statutory requirements for the recusal of a trial

1
Judge Grefer was the presiding judge over relator’s 2021 trial.

25-KH-48 1

judge, pursuant to the prejudice, bias, or personal interest provision set forth in La.
C.Cr.P. art. 671(A) and that any challenge against the trial judge in this case under
La. C.Cr.P. art. 674 had expired, as relator’s case had been tried and appealed.

In the instant writ application,2 relator seeks review of the denial of his
fourth recusal motion of Judge Grefer, which alleges bias as the grounds for
recusal. In support of his motion, Relator points out that he named Judge Grefer as
a defendant in a federal lawsuit and as the respondent in a complaint he filed with
the Louisiana Judiciary Commission. 3 Relator seeks the recusal of Judge Grefer
in his pending APCR together with an order staying a ruling on that APCR.
Analysis

A trial judge is presumed to be impartial, and the burden is on the party
seeking to recuse a judge to prove otherwise. State v. Sly, 23-60 (La. App. 5 Cir.
11/2/23), 376 So.3d 1047, 1096, writ denied, 23-1588 (La. 4/23/24), 383 So.3d
608. The grounds for recusal based on bias, prejudice, or personal interest must
amount to more than conclusory allegations. Id.

As previously stated, relator has filed several recusal motions in this matter.
In March 2024, we reviewed Judge Grefer’s ruling denying relator’s third motion
to recuse filed December 14, 2023 in State v. Patton, 24-87 (La. App. 5 Cir.
3/1/24) (unpublished writ disposition). Relator’s third recusal motion raised the
same allegations as the instant recusal motion, i.e., Judge Grefer’s bias against
relator during trial, relator’s federal lawsuit naming Judge Grefer as a defendant,4
and relator’s Louisiana Judiciary Commission complaint. In denying his writ
application, we found that relator’s arguments regarding the alleged failure of the
trial court to be impartial were previously reviewed and found to be meritless by
this Court on appeal in Patton, 355 So. 3d at 176. We also found relator’s
allegations contained in the complaint to the Louisiana Judiciary Commission
dated November 25, 2023 were based upon Judge Grefer’s actions during trial, and
the mere filing of a lawsuit against a judge is insufficient to recuse a judge because
judges are presumed to be impartial. State v. Duhon, 20-513 (La. App. 3 Cir.
5/26/21), 322 So.3d 326, 341.

2
We first note that relator’s writ application is untimely in that it was filed with this
Court on February 5, 2025, more than thirty days from the district court’s December 17, 2024
judgment We also note the writ application is not in compliance with Uniform Rules – Courts of
Appeal, Rule 4-5(C)(6) requiring a “copy of the judgment, order, or ruling complained of (if by
written judgment, order, or ruling)” and Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3 requiring
documentation of a return date attached to relator’s writ application. However, according to
relator, he was never served with a copy of the district court’s December 17, 2024 ruling denying
his motion to recuse. Also, the record reveals that the district court has not acted on relator’s
notice of intent filed on January 13, 2025. Given relator’s contention that he was not served with
a copy of the ruling and given that the district court has not acted on relator’s timely-filed notice,
we consider relator’s application in the interests of justice, and judicial economy.
3
Notably, on January 20, 2023, the federal district court dismissed without prejudice
relator’s civil rights action “for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Eleventh
Amendment.” See Patton v. City of Westwego, 2023 WL 1979966, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 20,
2023).

2
25-KH-48

Upon review, relator’s fourth recusal motion, which forms the basis of the
instant writ application, relies on the same repetitive, conclusory, and previously-
filed allegations raised in Patton, 24-87, supra. For the same reasons stated in
Patton, 24-87, supra, we find the allegations of bias raised in relator’s fourth
recusal motion without merit. We further find that relator fails to show any
statutory grounds under La. C.Cr.P. art. 671 that warrant the recusal of Judge
Grefer from considering his post-conviction proceedings.

Accordingly, we deny the relief requested in the instant writ application.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 25th day of February, 2025.

TSM
SMC
SUS

3
25-KH-48

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 02/25/2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

25-KH-48
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Stephen C. Grefer (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Thomas J. Butler (Respondent)

MAILED
John W. Patton #327902 (Relator)
Rayburn Correctional Center
27268 Highway 21
Angie, LA 70426