Baez v. Majuri

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Since pltff has shown no adequate basis for recusal, his motion 46 is denied. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/22/2011) c/m by chambers. (Galeano, Sonia)

'.

FILED
us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

*

'N CLERK'S OFFIC
DISTRICT COURT

~r~\ \
[1'!:>

E.lJ.'{o\

rl

~

JUN 23 2011~

POOKLYN OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DECISION AND ORDER

MELVIN BAEZ,
Plaintiff,

10 Civ. 3038 (BMC)(VVP)
- againstSERGIO MAmRI, Badge #2396,
Defendant.

x
COGAN, District Judge.
In this pro se action for false arrest and excessive force under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff
has moved for the recusal of Magistrate Judge Viktor Pohorelsky and myself based on the fact
that we presided over his criminal case, which resulted in his guilty plea and sentence. Plaintiff
contends that we are not impartial and have personal knowledge of facts relating to his claims as
a result of our prior exposure to his criminal case.
For his claim oflack of impartiality, plaintiff relies principally on the fact that we entered
adverse rulings in the criminal case. He also asserts that in the instant case, Judge Pohorelsky
sua sponte raised the issue discussed in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364

(1994), concerning the limitations of § 1983 relief if such relief would conflict with a criminal
conviction, and that this shows bias against him. For his claim of personal knowledge of facts,
he generally refers to the facts that came out in his criminal case.
The "personal knowledge" ground for recusal under 28 U .S.C. § 455(b)(I) does not refer
to or include knowledge gained in parallel judicial proceedings. See United States v. Jamieson,

427 FJd 394, 405 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 FJd 564,
566-67 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Liteky, 973 F.2d 910,910 (11th Cir. 1992), affd on
related grounds, 510 U.S. 540,114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994); Inre Corrugated Container Antitrust
Litig., 614 F.2d 958,964-66 (5th Cir. 1980). Nor do adverse rulings, whether in the pending
case or the related case, suffice to show bias or lack of impartiality. See Bolt v. United States,
509 F.3d 1028,1035 (9th Cir. 2007); Hamrick v. Hoffman, 550 F. Supp. 2d 8,12-13 (D.D.C.
2008); LoCascio v. United States, 372 F. Supp. 2d 304,314-15 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). In addition, a
judge's citation of case law adverse to a party does not indicate partiality or bias. See Lipin v.
Bergquist, 574 F. Supp. 2d 423,427 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Since plaintiff has shown no adequate basis for recusal, his motion [46] is denied.

SO ORDERED,
------~--

·U.S.D.J.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 22, 2011
/

/

2