Filing 27

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying Plaintiff's 23 Second Motion for Recusal of Cynthia Reed Eddy and 19 First Motion for Reconsideration of the 18 Memorandum Order from 4/5/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 4/17/2017. (bap) (Main Document 27 replaced on 4/17/2017 to correct typo re date) (bap).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JASON KOKINDA, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA DOC, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 17-cv-217 United States District Judge Mark R. Hornak United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECUSAL & MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Cynthia Reed Eddy, United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Jason Kokinda’s second motion for recusal against the undersigned. (ECF No. 23). He seeks to have the undersigned recuse not only from this case, but also from all of his other civil actions that are currently pending in this Court.1 The undersigned has reviewed and considered the motion and its supporting brief (ECF No. 24), and concludes that his position is without merit. In this regard, the explanation provided by the undersigned on April 5, 2017 in the Memorandum Order (ECF No. 18) that denied Plaintiff’s first motion for recusal (ECF No. 16) is sufficient to dispose of his substantially similar arguments advanced in this second motion for recusal. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby incorporates that Memorandum Order as if it is fully set forth herein, and denies Plaintiff’s second motion for recusal. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the April 5, 2017 Memorandum 1 Those other actions are 2:16-cv-5; 2:16-cv-1303; 2:16-cv-1457; 2:16-cv-1580. He has also just filed a motion for recusal in the action at 2:16-cv-1457 in responding to the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. 1 Order (ECF No. 19) is denied because it fails to identify (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the emergence of new evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. See Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2017, having considered Plaintiff’s second motion for recusal (ECF No. 23) and the brief in support thereof (ECF No. 24), as well as Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the undersigned’s April 5, 2017 Memorandum Order (ECF No. 19), it is hereby ORDERED that both motions are DENIED. By the Court: s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy Cynthia Reed Eddy United States Magistrate Judge cc: all registered users of CM-ECF 2

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?