Judge Felix, a named defendant in Husband's pending records suit, denied the motion to remove him from Husband's family case 9 hours and 27 minutes after it was filed, in an order that never mentions he is a defendant.
Art. I, s. 9 guarantees an impartial judge, and Rule 2.330(e)(2)(C) makes a judge's own interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding a ground for disqualification. Rule 2.330(e)(2)(C) makes the judge's own interest a ground of its own, separate from bias. Judge Felix rules on that ground, in writing, on the motion's face, and makes the findings asked for. He does not grade his own fairness. He knew the question: asked on May 29, 2026 whether he knew he was a defendant, he answered "I may be."
- Nov. 13, 2025: Husband's amended petition in 25-CA-010255 names Judge Felix as a defendant. N-059, N-118
- Jan. 8 and April 17, 2026: Judge Felix denied the first motion on rule 2.330(i) alone, with no analysis of his status as a defendant. Asked six times for findings, he said: "I can make the ruling without findings of facts, and if the Second DCA says I need to find facts, then I'll do so." N-069, N-091
- June 10, 2026, 12:00 AM to 9:27 AM: Doc 329 pled the separate interest ground, rule 2.330(e)(2)(C), and asked for findings under Caperton. Doc 331 denied it under rule 2.330(i): the judge "can be fair and impartial in this case" and the motion "is legally insufficient as a matter of law." The two-page order never mentions the records suit. N-118Why may a judge who is a defendant in Husband's records suit preside over Husband's family case? Three courts have been asked, and none has said.Read them: Motion to disqualify, Doc 329 (June 10, 2026, 12:00 AM) (link pending redacted copy) · Order denying it, Doc 331 (June 10, 2026, 9:27 AM) (link pending redacted copy)
Judge Matthew Felix, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, presiding in the family case and a named defendant in 25-CA-010255, ruled on his own disqualification the morning it was filed. One motion, one order, one morning. Every duty here arises from the Constitution and rule 2.330 on this motion alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 9, Fla. Const. and the Fourteenth Amendment: "[N]o man can be a judge in his own case" (In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)). Recusal is required where "the probability of actual bias ... is too high to be constitutionally tolerable" (Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 872 (2009)). Rule 2.330(e)(2)(C) makes the judge's own interest a ground separate from bias, judged on the motion's face with the truth of the allegations not weighed (Fischer v. Knuck).
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
The judge Husband is suing decided whether he could keep Husband's case; his order does not mention that he is a defendant in it.
Judge Felix is a named defendant in Husband's pending public-records suit (25-CA-010255). Doc 329, the motion to disqualify him on that ground, was filed at 12:00 AM on 6/10/26. At 8:34 AM Davis filed a fee request limited to the fees of responding to the motion (Doc 330). At 9:27 AM, 9 hours and 27 minutes after the filing, Judge Felix denied the motion to disqualify himself (Doc 331). He cited rule 2.330(i), called the motion "legally insufficient," and stated that he is able to be fair and impartial. He never addressed the separately pled (e)(2)(C) interest ground or the due-process argument. [DENIED]
The Constitution decides this one: no man may judge his own case (Murchison), and recusal is required where the probability of bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable (Caperton; Williams). Where a court rule and the federal Constitution conflict, the Constitution controls (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Doc 329 pleaded the status ground under Rule 2.330(e)(2)(C), distinct from the earlier prejudice motion, and asked for findings under Caperton. The order ruled as a successor judge under subdivision (i), certified its own fairness, and never mentions the defendant status the motion was about.
the motion pled a status ground the rule treats separately, that the judge was himself a named defendant in a pending case; the order denying it 9 hours and 27 minutes after filing called the motion "legally insufficient" and never mentions that ground
- 10255 Doc 038 p. 1, the caption naming "JUDGE MATTHEW FELIX" as a defendant.
- Doc 329 (filed 12:00 AM 6/10/26).
- Doc 330 (8:34 AM).
- Doc 331 (9:27 AM), with the DIN confirmed by a docket pull.