Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation et al

Filing 321

ORDER denying 318 Motion for Reconsideration re 318 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 315 Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge,. filed by Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo. Plaintiff's utterly frivolous motion for reconsideration merely rehashes the same arguments he made in favor of the original recusal motion and sets forth no reasonable basis for reconsideration. That motion is, therefore, DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to: (i) terminate the motion sequence pendin g at Doc. 318 in 17-CV-02810; (ii) terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 100 in 19-CV-09943; and (iii) reject future submissions from Plaintiff that are filed without leave of the Court. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 04/13/2023) (jca)

Case 7:17-cv-02810-PMH-PED Document 321 Filed 04/13/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO,
Plaintiff,
-againstBALCHEM CORPORATION, et al.,

ORDER
17-CV-02810 (PMH)
19-CV-09943 (PMH)

Defendants.
PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff made a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) on March 24, 2023—more than
two years after this case closed—seeking the disqualification of the undersigned. (Doc. 311). The
Court denied that motion on April 5, 2023 because Plaintiff “stated no conceivable basis in fact or
law for his motion and has failed to meet his burden of proof.” (Doc. 315). Plaintiff filed a motion
seeking reconsideration of that decision on April 10, 2023. 1
A motion for reconsideration “is appropriate where ‘the moving party can point to
controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.’” Henderson v. Metro. Bank
& Tr. Co., 502 F. Supp. 2d 372, 375-76 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting In re BDC 56 LLC, 330 F.3d
111, 123 (2d Cir. 2003)). Plaintiff’s utterly frivolous motion for reconsideration merely rehashes
the same arguments he made in favor of the original recusal motion and sets forth no reasonable
basis for reconsideration. That motion is, therefore, DENIED.
The Court previously noted that, in the more than two years since this case closed,
“numerous ill-founded post-judgment motions and a years-long letter writing campaign have been

Plaintiff filed the same motion in another closed matter assigned to this Court. Kamdem-Ouaffo v.
Balchem, No. 19-CV-09943 at Doc. 100. This Order resolves both motions.

1

Case 7:17-cv-02810-PMH-PED Document 321 Filed 04/13/23 Page 2 of 3

filed by the pro se Plaintiff.” (Doc. 315). 2 The Court also previously warned Plaintiff “that future
filings involving similar claims, facts, issues, and parties, will not be tolerated [and that should he]
persist in his course of conduct, ‘the Court will require that Plaintiff first seek leave of Court before
submitting such filings.’” Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corp., No. 19-CV-09943, 2022 WL
1081994, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2022) (quoting Kapsis v. Brandveen, No. 09-CV-01352, 2009
WL 2182609, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 20, 2009)). Plaintiff has, nevertheless, filed dozens of frivolous
and abusive documents on both closed dockets before this Court since that warning was given.
Plaintiff is, accordingly, prohibited from making any further entries on either closed docket
without leave of the Court. See McMillan v. Daniel, No. 9:16-CV-00277, 2018 WL 555510, at *3
(N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018) (recognizing the Court’s “inherent authority to control and manage its
own docket so as to prevent abuse in its proceedings.”); Moore v. United States, No. 08-CV-10204
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2016) (Sullivan, J.) (Doc. No. 6.) (prohibiting a pro se plaintiff “from filing
any documents . . . under . . . the docket numbers of . . . closed cases in this Court.” ).
Should Plaintiff, in violation of this Order, file any additional documents in either closed
matter without first seeking and obtaining the Court’s leave, the Clerk of Court is directed to reject
those filings.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to: (i) terminate the motion sequence pending
at Doc. 318 in 17-CV-02810; (ii) terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 100 in 19-CV09943; and (iii) reject future submissions from Plaintiff that are filed without leave of the Court.

2

Indeed, Plaintiff continues his letter writing campaign on the docket to this day. (See Doc. 320).

2

Case 7:17-cv-02810-PMH-PED Document 321 Filed 04/13/23 Page 3 of 3

SO ORDERED:
Dated: White Plains, New York
April 13, 2023

____________________________
Philip M. Halpern
United States District Judge

3