Walker v. LaValley et al
Filing
80
DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED, that Walker's motion for recusal (Dkt. No. 77 ) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel on 5/30/2014. (ptm) (Copy served on plaintiff by regular mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TYRONE WALKER,
Plaintiff,
12-CV-807
(TJM/CFH)
v.
THOMAS LaVALLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
TYRONE WALKER
Pro Se Plaintiff
94-A-5258
Upstate Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2001
Malone, New York 12953
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
Attorney for Defendants
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
JOSHUA E. McMAHON, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff pro se Tyrone Walker commenced this action in May, 2012, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that four defendants violated his constitutional rights while
he was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility. Presently before the Court is a
motion for recusal seeking the undersigned be removed from this case in conjunction
with events which occurred during a telephone conference, resulting in a written order
from the undersigned on Walker’s motion to compel. Dkt. Nos. 77. Defendants took no
position with regard to Walker’s motion. Dkt. No. 78. For the reasons stated below,
Walker’s motion is denied.
On April 18, 2013, Walker filed a motion to supplement and amend his
complaint. Dkt. No. 32. Defendants opposed the motion. Dkt. No. 34. By written
order, Walker’s April 28, 2013 motion was granted in part and denied in part. Dkt. No.
44. Specifically, the Court denied Walker’s request to join an additional defendant and
granted his request to supplement his claims related to a December, 2011 restraint
order. Id. at 6, 8–9.
On September 9, 2013, Walker filed a motion to compel further discovery from
defendants. Dkt. No. 39. Defendants did not respond to that motion. On September
30, 2013, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 40. The Court
ordered a telephone conference to occur on November 18, 2013. Dkt. No. 52. That
conference was held, on-the-record, with counsel for defendants and Walker at 9:30
a.m. Dkt. Nos. 52, 53. By order dated November 20, 2013, the Court granted Walker’s
motion to compel to the extent that defendants shall filed supplemental responses to
plaintiff pro se’s interrogatories, notices to admit, and production of documents by
December 23, 2013. Dkt. No. 53 at 2.
On February 10, 2014, Walker filed a motion to compel responses to
interrogatories, admissions, production of documents, genuineness of document, and
seeking the imposition of sanctions. Dkt. No. 60. Defendants opposed that motion.
Dkt. No. 64. A conference was held on-the-record with counsel for defendants and
Walker on May 1, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Text Minute Entry dated 05/01/2014. A second
conference was conducted on-the-record, with counsel for defendants and Walker on
May 16, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Text Minute Entry dated 05/16/2014. By order dated May
19, 2014, the Court directed defendants to serve supplemental responses to Walker’s
2
discovery demands as directed by the Court by June 16, 2014 and denied Walker’s
request for the imposition of sanctions. Dkt. No. 76. The Court further indicated that
discovery in this matter is closed. Id.
The docket sheet for this case indicates that the conference held on May 16,
2014 lasted for forty minutes. Text Minute Entry dated 05/16/14. It is the Court’s
recollection that at the inception of the conference, Walker expressed frustration and
disagreed with the Court’s previous rulings on interrogatories and admissions. The
Court recalls that during the second half of the conference, Walker again expressed the
same frustration and attempted to revisit those rulings previously made by the Court.
The Court terminated the conference by directing defendants to respond to certain of
Walker’s discovery demands.
Now, Walker has filed a motion for recusal of the undersigned claiming that the
undersigned “demonstrated biasness [sic], and prejudicial conduct towards [him] and . .
. was partial towards the defendants.” Dkt. No. 77 at 1. Walker further claims that the
undersigned tried “to bolster the lies of the Attorney for the Defendants and state
certain restraint orders [were] not related to the 12-20-11 restraint order and even
initiate denying certain admissions to be answered without prompting from plaintiff’s
opponent.” Id. at 4. Walker disagreed with the legal rulings of the undersigned and
contends that the undersigned terminated the conference without addressing the issue
of sanctions. Id.
The Court construes Walker’s recusal motion as being brought under 28 U.S.C.
§ 144 and § 455. See Dkt. No. 79 (Walker affidavit invoking the former statute only).
Both statues are construed in pari materia using the same objective analysis. Apple v.
3
Jewish Hosp. and Med. Ctr., 829 F.2d 326, 333 (2d Cir. 1987). Section 144 provides
that a federal judge must recuse himself when a party has filed a “timely and sufficient
affidavit” showing that the judge has “a personal bias or prejudice” against the party or
in favor of an adverse party. 28 U.S.C. § 144. However, the filing of such an affidavit
does not automatically disqualify a judge. Apple, 829 F.2d at 333. Section§ 455(a)
states that a federal judge must recuse himself in any proceeding where “his impartiality
might reasonably be questioned. . . . [or] he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning
a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding.” See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) & (b)(1). “The substantive inquiry to determine
bias or prejudice is whether a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would conclude
that the . . . judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned.” Jemzura v. Public
Service Com’n, 961 F. Supp. 406, 410 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Thus, “recusal is appropriate only when the opinions formed by a . . .
judge display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible.” Id. (citing Groden v. Random House, Inc., 61 F.3d 1045, 1053 (2d Cir.
1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
With respect to a claim of personal bias or prejudice, the Second Circuit has held
that “adverse rulings by a judge can[not] per se create the appearance of bias under [§]
455(a).” In re Int’l Bus.Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 929 (2d Cir. 1980). The Second
Circuit went on to explain that:
A trial judge must be free to make rulings on the merits
without the apprehension that if he makes a disproportionate
number in favor of one litigant, he may have created the
impression of bias. Judicial independence cannot be
subservient to a statistical study of the calls he has made
4
during the contest.
Id. (citations omitted). “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for
bias . . . [instead judicial opinions] are proper grounds for appeal, not recusal.” Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (citation omitted).
Contrary to Walker’s unsupported suppositions, this Court has no personal bias
nor interest in this litigation. Moreover, Walker has not presented any objectively
reliable facts that even suggest that this Court has not been impartial. Although Walker
disagrees with certain of this Court’s rulings, that disapproval alone does not “constitute
a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 555.
Accordingly, Walker’s motion for recusal is denied.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Walker’s motion for recusal (Dkt. No. 77) is DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 28, 2014
Albany, New York
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?