Paige v. LaCoste et al

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This Court construes Document #59, which is entitled both "Affidavit of Facts" and "Writ of Recusal," to be a motion seeking the recusal of all judges involved in both cases (10-CV-3356 and 10-CV-5469). Since both of these cases are closed, the motion is moot. Even if it were not moot, however, this Court would decline to recuse itself for the reasons set forth in the attached document. So Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 1/13/2012. (Manuel, Germaine)

HLED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN CLERK'S : ,
,; S DJSTRJC";T ::cr !RT _

lr

JAN I I 2012

*

--------------------------------------------------------)[

ZAIRE PAIGE,

BROOKLYN OFFICE

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against10-CV-3356 (SLT)(RER)
RASHAN LACOSTE, et al.,
Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------)[

ZAIRE PAIGE,

Plaintiff,
-against10-CV-5469 (SLT)(RER)
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, eta/.,
Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------)[
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
This Court is in receipt of a five-page document from plaintiff Zaire Paige - dated
December 16, 2011, but notarized on January 4, 2012- which is entitled both "Affidavit of
Facts" and "Writ ofRecusal" (Document# 59). The document begins by stating that it is a "Writ
ofRecusal" and "is in object [sic] of the decision to dismiss" the two above-captioned cases.
However, the only relief e)[pressly sought in the document is that all judges involved in this
action recuse themselves.
This Court construes this document as a recusal motion. However, since both cases are
already closed, this motion is moot. Even if it were not moot, this Court would decline to recuse
itself. This Court is not biased or prejudiced against plaintiff or his grandmother. To the
contrary, the Court, cognizant of plaintiffs pro se status, has been careful to protect plaintiff's
rights. When plaintiff prematurely protested the dismissal of these actions, this Court clarified

that the actions were still pending and explained to plaintiff precisely what actions he needed to
take in order to avoid dismissal. See Paige v. LaCoste, Nos. 10-CV-3356 (SLT)(RER) and
10-CV-5469 (SLT)(RER), 2011 WL 5191380 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2011). Plaintiff failed to take
those actions, however. After this Court dismissed the actions, this Court wrote another
Memorandum and Order explaining that plaintiff could move for reconsideration pursuant to
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and listing the information that should be
provided in any such motion. See Paige v. LaCoste, Nos. 10-CV-3356 (SLT)(RER) and
10-CV-5469 (SLT)(RER), 2011 WL 6937626, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2011). !d. at *2. To
date, plaintiff has failed to file any such motion. 1

CONCLUSION
This Court construes Document #59, which is entitled both "Affidavit of Facts" and
"Writ ofRecusal," to be a motion seeking the recusal of all judges involved in the two abovecaptioned cases. Since both of these cases are closed, the motion is moot. Even if it were not
moot, however, this Court would decline to recuse itself for the reasons set forth above.

SO ORDERED.

s/ SLT

I

SANDRA L. TOWNES \
· Umted States D1stnct Judge

Dated: January 13, 2012
Brooklyn, New York

1

Although the instant submission states that plaintiff's mail was "tampered with" at
Rikers Island and suggests that plaintiff signed the "Medical Release Form" at issue in Paige v.
LaCoste, it does not comply with the requirements for reconsideration set forth in Paige v.
LaCoste, 2011 WL 6937626, at *2. Moreover, the submission is dated December 16,2011- two
weeks before the above-mentioned Memorandum and Order was issued. Accordingly, this Court
does not construe the instant submission to be a motion for reconsideration.
2