we deny the City’s petition directed to the trial court’s- disqualification order and dismiss as premature the City’s petition directed to the trial court’s denial of the City’s motion to dismiss. Petition Directed To Trial Judge’s Disqualification Order (3D16-900) The City sought to disqualify the trial judge because of statements made by the judge during the hearing on the City’s motion to dismiss. After the trial' court denied the City’s recusal motion, the City filed a petition with this court seeking prohibition. Taken in context, the trial court’s statements that formed the basis of the City’s recusal motion did not create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. Forehand v. Walton Cty., 172 So.3d 517, 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (<HOLDING>). ■ Therefore, we deny the City’s petition for
holding that bankruptcy judges are not bound by appellate ruhngs of single district judges even those from their own district recognizing that tjrial judges are permitted to be aware of events in their own communities  general observations acknowledging such awareness are insufficient to establish a basis for disqualification recognizing that states may establish procedural rules governing litigation in their own courts holding that judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly holding that indian tribes are distinct independent political communities retaining their original natural rights in matters of selfgovernment