Sklodowska-Grezak v. Stein et al

Filing 94

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 92 MOTION for Recusal. filed by Grazyna Sklodowska-Grezak. The Court has received the plaintiff's motion for the Court to recuse itself, ECF No. 92. The gist of the plaintiff's argument is that the defendants' letters to the Court have been "ex parte and inflammatory," and prevent the Court from being fair and impartial. (As further set forth in this Order.) There is no basis to believe the Court is biased in any way. The Cour t will continue to decide all matters in this case based solely on the facts presented and the law and will continue to be fair to all parties. The motion for recusal is denied. The Clerk is directed to close ECF No. 92. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 1/20/2017) (cf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
GRAZYNA SKLOWDOWSKA-GREZAK,
15-cv-1670
Plaintiff,
- against JUDITH A. STEIN, PH.D, ET AL.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

Defendants.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The Court has received the plaintiff’s motion for the Court
to recuse itself, ECF No. 92. Although the Court has indicated
that it will not decide motions while the appeal in this case is
pending, the Court will consider the submission because it does
not relate to the merits of the case. The gist of the
plaintiff’s argument is that the defendants’ letters to the
Court have been “ex parte and inflammatory,” and prevent the
Court from being fair and impartial.
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 judge is as much obliged not to recuse
himself when it is not called for as he is obliged to when it
is.” Id.

There has been no showing of bias, and none exists. Many of
the plaintiff’s accusations are directed at the Magistrate Judge
and not at the Court. The Magistrate Judge can address the
separate motion to recuse the Magistrate Judge. The remaining
accusations are frivolous. There have been no “secret
proceedings,” nor have the defendants’ communications served to
prejudice the Court against the plaintiff. The Court has not
engaged in ex parte communications. The Court routinely sends
all orders to the plaintiff in addition to the defendants, and
speaks to the parties only during conferences with a court
reporter present. There is no basis to believe the Court is
biased in any way. The Court will continue to decide all matters
in this case based solely on the facts presented and the law and
will continue to be fair to all parties.
The motion for recusal is denied. The Clerk is directed to
close ECF No. 92.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
January 20, 2017

__/s/

_________________________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge