CLAUSO v. BONDS et al

Filing 93

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/10/2022. (dmr)

Case 1:18-cv-12217-NLH-LHG Document 93 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 737

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO,

No. 1:18-cv-12217-NLH-LHG

Plaintiff,

OPINION

v.
WARDEN WILLIE BONDS, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO
59252
SOUTH WOODS STATE PRISON
215 SOUTH BURLINGTON ROAD
BRIDGETON, NJ 08302
Plaintiff appearing pro se.

NICCOLE L. SANDORA
NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DIVISION OF LAW, STATE POLICE, EMPLOYMENT & CORRECTIONS
25 MARKET STREET
PO BOX 112
TRENTON, NJ 08625
Attorney for Defendants Warden Willie Bonds, Guard Martinelli,
and Guard Hansen.
HILLMAN, District Judge
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for
Recusal.

For the reasons expressed herein, this Court will deny

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal.
BACKGROUND
Having previously set forth the facts of this case and

Case 1:18-cv-12217-NLH-LHG Document 93 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 738

Plaintiff’s extensive, handwritten Complaint at length in its
Opinion dated July 9, 2019, the Court shall recount only those
facts that bear directly on the instant motion.

Plaintiff,

Thomas James Clauso, is a convicted state prisoner who is
currently incarcerated at South Woods State Prison.

On August

26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, alleging a series of
different claims against the warden of his prison, multiple
guards, and a nurse who once treated him.

(ECF No. 1).

On November 12, 2021, the Court docketed a letter from
Plaintiff complaining about his counsel, Roberto A. Rivera-Soto
and the undersigned.

(ECF 85).

In the letter, Plaintiff listed

various grievances that he had with his representation by Mr.
Rivera-Soto and with this Court presiding over the instant
matter, in terms that at times veered into threatening language.
(See generally id.)

In his letter, he purported to fire Mr.

Rivera-Soto who was appointed pro bono at Plaintiff’s request to
assist Plaintiff as his counsel in this matter and further asked
that the undersigned be removed from this case.

(Id. at 1).

Though Plaintiff has not styled his request as a formal motion
for recusal, because he is pro se and based on the relief he is
seeking, the Court will construe it as such.
ANALYSIS
A.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over
2

Case 1:18-cv-12217-NLH-LHG Document 93 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 739

Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
B.

Motion for Recusal

A determination regarding recusal is within the sound
discretion of the trial court judge. United States v.
Wilensky, 757 F.2d 594, 599–600 (3d Cir.1985).

The two

principal statutes which address judicial recusal are 28 U.S.C.
§§ 144 and 455.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 144, recusal must occur “[w]henever a
party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a
timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the
matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either
against him or in favor of any adverse party.” 28 U.S.C. § 144.
However, a “substantial burden is imposed on the party filing an
affidavit of prejudice to demonstrate that the judge is not
impartial.” Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., No. 05–04813,
2011 WL 1337513, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2011) (citation
omitted); see also Kilkeary v. United States, No. 12–2781, 2015
WL 3798061, at *4 (D.N.J. June 18, 2015).
Alternatively, § 455(a) provides, in pertinent part, that
“[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall
disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

“The test

for recusal under § 455(a) is whether a reasonable person, with
knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge's
3

Case 1:18-cv-12217-NLH-LHG Document 93 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 740

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Allen v. Parkland
Sch. Dist., 230 F. App'x 189, 193 (3d Cir.2007) (citing In re
Kensington Int'l Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 220 (3d Cir. 2003)).

The

grounds for recusal must be extrajudicial and not based on any
views the judge would have developed from considering the
proceedings.

In re Kayati, 2018 WL 722705, at *7 (Bankr. D.N.J.

Feb. 5, 2018) (“As the Supreme Court described, just like §
144, § 455 requires that the basis for recusal for bias must be
extrajudicial, and further that ‘judicial rulings alone almost
never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
motion.’”) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555,
(1994)).
Here, Petitioner has not filed an affidavit within the
meaning of § 144.

Rather, he has filed a rambling letter motion

with an equally disjointed certification.

(See ECF 85).

Petitioner complains of his condition in prison and says, “I
demand the removal of Judge Hillman from my matter[.]” (Id. at
1).

He also states that “Judge Hillman was an ex federal

prosecutor and a republican and did not care for prisoner
litigation[.]” (Id. at 6).

Finally, he states that he is firing

his lawyer and that “Judge Hillman and [my lawyer] can conspire
to do some foul crap[.]”

(Id. at 7).

The Court construes Petitioner’s motion to be based on §

4

Case 1:18-cv-12217-NLH-LHG Document 93 Filed 01/10/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 741

455(a), 1 as he refers to the undersigned as an “ex federal
prosecutor and a republican.”

Effectively, Petitioner seems to

be arguing that the undersigned’s career history and alleged
political views is evidence of impartiality.

Petitioner’s bald

statements on bias are not enough to prevail on his motion for
recusal.

Jaye v. Oak Knoll Vill. Condo. Owners Ass'n, Inc.,

2016 WL 6471027, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2016), aff'd, 751 F.
App'x 293 (3d Cir. 2018) (“Plaintiff's allegations amount
to conclusory and tenuous allegations that do not meet the
substantive standards set forth in Section 455.”); In re Kayati,
2018 WL 722705 at *7 (noting that §§ 144 and 455 use the same
standard to evaluate bias and conclusory statements need not be
credited).

Because Petitioner has not made a showing of

extrajudicial bias, his motion for recusal must be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, this Court will deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal.

(ECF 85).

An appropriate Order will be entered.

Date: January 10, 2022
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

Petitioner does not appear to be making a claim of bias under §
455(b), and the Court’s independent review of that provision,
along with a liberal reading of Petitioner’s motion, makes clear
that section is not at issue here.
1

5