Opinion
21-CV-1993-CAB-MSB
12-27-2021
JOSEPH AMAZIAH TRENTON, Plaintiff, v. CARMAX, INC. et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE [Doc. No. 4]
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge
On November 30, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) without prejudice because Plaintiff's application was not credible and lacked particularity, definiteness and certainty” in the information provided. Plaintiff now objects to the Court's denial of his IFP application and asks the undersigned to recuse from this case. Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's order, however, is not a basis for the undersigned to recuse. Accordingly, the motion to recuse is DENIED.
The Court did not deny Plaintiff's application with prejudice. Rather, it gave him the opportunity to provide additional information about his financial situation to allow the Court to fully assess his ability to pay the filing fee. As stated in the Court's prior order, Plaintiff has until January 7, 2022 , to pay the entire filing fee or file a renewed application to proceed IFP that provides complete and accurate information concerning Plaintiff's income, assets, and expenses. If Plaintiff believes the Court's denial of his application was erroneous, he should file a renewed application that provides all of the requested information about his income, assets, debts, and expenses. Failure to file a renewed IFP application, or to pay the full filing fee, will result in closure of this case.
It is SO ORDERED