KOKINDA v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

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).

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