Cooksey v. Simmons et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court denies the plaintiff's motion for "automatic[] disqualification" in its entirety. The plaintiff's time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, ECF Docket No. 49, is extend ed to May 09, 2016. The time to reply is extended to May 23, 2016. This motion has been pending since February 16, 2016. If the plaintiff fails to respond to the motion, the Court will decide the motion on the papers already submitted. The Clerk is directed to close ECF Docket No. 58. So ordered. re: 58 MOTION to Disqualify Judge. filed by Calvin Edward Cooksey. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 4/20/2016) (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
CALVIN EDWARD COOKSEY,
Plaintiff,

14-cv-7146 (JGK)

- against -

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

GLOBAL GRIND DIGITAL ,
Defendant.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiff, moving pro se, filed a motion for
“automatic[] disqualification” of the Court, which the Court
construes as a motion for the Court to recuse itself.
The essence of the plaintiff’s argument is that the Court
gave improper legal advice to the defendant during a conference
when the Court said it would not indefinitely seal the entire
Amended Complaint, as the defendant preferred, but instead
placed the burden on the defendant to make an application to
justify sealing only parts of the Amended Complaint.
The Court has reviewed the papers.

The plaintiff has

failed to present any colorable grounds for recusal.

The Court

has the obligation in the first instance to review the
allegations to determine if they are legally sufficient.

See,

e.g., In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1312 (2d
Cir. 1988) (“Discretion is confided in the district judge in the
first instance to determine whether to disqualify himself.”). “A
1

judge is as much obliged not to recuse himself when it is not
called for as he is obliged to when it is.”

Id.

Here there is no showing of bias and none exists.
plaintiff’s accusations are frivolous.

The

For example, the Court’s

instruction to the defendant to file an application to justify
the sealing of only parts of the Amended Complaint actually
favored the plaintiff.

Other contentions---including that the

defendant faxed material to the Court that it did not provide to
the plaintiff---are contradicted by the plaintiff’s own filings,
and still others---including that the Court is biased against
the plaintiff---are conclusory and untrue.
The Court will continue to decide all matters in this case
based solely on the facts presented in this case and the law.
The plaintiff may disagree with rulings of this Court, but that
disagreement is not a ground for finding bias and is not a basis
for disqualification under either 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C.
§ 455.

See, e.g., Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555

(1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a
valid basis for a bias or partiality motion . . . . Almost
invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for
recusal.”); see also Morris v. Citibank, No. 97cv2127 (JGK),
1999 WL 14682, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 1999); S.E.C. v. Zubkis,
No. 97cv8086 (JGK), 1998 WL 567830, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3,
1998).

2

The plaintiff also moves to stay all proceedings.
no reason to do so.

The case is not stayed.

There is

The plaintiff also

asks for the “disqualification” of Chief Judge Preska, even
though the case is not before her; that request is denied.
The Court denies the plaintiff’s motion for “automatic[]
disqualification” in its entirety.
The plaintiff’s time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint, ECF Docket No. 49, is extended to May 09,
2016.

The time to reply is extended to May 23, 2016.

motion has been pending since February 16, 2016.

This

If the

plaintiff fails to respond to the motion, the Court will decide
the motion on the papers already submitted.
The Clerk is directed to close ECF Docket No. 58.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
April 20, 2016

____________/s/_______________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

3