Opinion
17-cv-8806 (NSR)
07-27-2023
SHIRLEY DIMPS, Plaintiff, v. TACONIC CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, NYS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, NYS DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, AND CSEA, INC., Defendants.
ORDER
NELSON S. ROMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Before the Court is Shirley Dimps's (“Plaintiff”) motion requesting that the Honorable Nelson S. Roman recuse himself from presiding over the instant matter. (See ECF No. 106 and 107.) For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
BACKGROUND
On February 5, 2020, the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order (C. A. No. 19-0975-cv; ECF No. 80) vacating the Court's March 27, 2019 judgment (ECF No. 74) to the extent it denied Plaintiff leave to amend her Title VII claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), but affirmed the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (“ADEA”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims against Taconic Correctional Facility (“Taconic”), the New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), the New York State Department of Civil Service (“DCS”) (together, the “State Defendants”), and the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (“CSEA”). (ECF No. 80 at 2.)
Following the Second Circuit's Summary Order, the Court reopened the case and issued an order on February 7, 2020 directing Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint by March 23, 2020 that alleges Title VII claims against DOCCS. (ECF No. 77.) Because Plaintiff failed to file a Second Amended Complaint by that deadline, the Court issued an order to show cause for want of prosecution on February 2, 2023. (ECF No. 88.) The Order to Show Cause was vacated after Plaintiff wrote to the Court indicating that she intended on filing a Second Amended Complaint and wanted to continue prosecuting her case. (ECF No. 91.) Following requests for extensions, which the Court granted, the Court directed Plaintiff to file her Second Amended Complaint by May 8, 2023. (ECF No. 95.) On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 96.)
On May 10, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's request to amend her pleadings in order to assert ADA, ADEA, Section 1981 violations against individual DOCCS supervisors and/or DOCCS. (ECF No. 99.) However, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to add a paragraph to the Statement of Facts as specified in her May 8, 2023 letter docketed at ECF No. 97. (ECF No. 99.)
On June 28, 2023, the Court granted Defendants leave to file a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and issued a briefing schedule on the motion as follows: Defendants are to serve (not file) opening papers on or before August 30, 2023; Plaintiff is to serve (not file) opposition papers on or before October 16, 2023; Defendants are to serve their reply papers on October 31, 2023. (ECF No. 105.)
DISCUSSION
Now before the Court is Plaintiff's notice of motion requesting that the Court recuse itself because Plaintiff, inter alia, argues that the Court is biased for granting Defendants leave to file a motion to dismiss instead of scheduling a pre-motion conference, and because the Court did not grant Plaintiff's request to commence discovery. Plaintiff also states that “Your Honor is influencing this case by granting the dismissal of the Second Amended Employment Discrimination Complaint which was not requested by the Attorney General Office.” (ECF No. 107 at 5.) Plaintiff argues that the Court has shown “favoritism, influencing/aiding the case for the defendants, lack of making fair and impartial decisions, being prejudice and bias in the case [sic].” (Id. at 8.)
By way of background, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) requires that a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This section requires recusal where “an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the underlying facts [would] entertain significant doubt that justice would be done absent recusal[.]” Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, No. 16-CV-6099 (AJN), 2020 WL 7646889, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2020) (citing United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811, 815 (2d Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Bayless, 201 F.3d 116, 126 (2d Cir. 2000). Recusal motions are committed to the sound discretion of the district court. See Lovaglia, 954 F.2d at 815. In considering recusal motions, “judges must be alert to the possibility that those who would question their impartiality are in fact seeking to avoid the consequences of the judge's expected adverse decision.” Id. (internal marks omitted) (citing H. R. Rep. No. 1453, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6351, 6355).
The Court notes that “[d]isagreement with the decision[s] of the Court is not a basis for recusal.” Straw v. Dentons U.S. LLP, No. 20-CV-3312 (JGK), 2020 WL 4004128, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020) (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion . . . Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”). Plaintiff appears to seek recusal on the basis that she disagrees with the Court's decision to issue briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss and for not scheduling a conference and allowing the case to proceed to discovery at this time. (See ECF No. 107.) Plaintiff's disagreement with the decisions of this Court-and the basis of her recusal motion-are grounded on her misunderstanding of federal procedure and the life cycle of her case. To be sure, the Court advises Plaintiff that her Second Amened Complaint has not been dismissed-rather, the briefing on the motion to dismiss is pending. After briefing is complete, the Court will assess the arguments and decide whether Plaintiff's allegations in the Second Amended Complaint adequately pleads causes of action such that the case may proceed into the discovery stage.
Plaintiff is advised that although she is a pro se litigant, it is her obligation to fully understand the procedural posture of her case along with Court's individual rules, the Southern District of New York's Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is highly encouraged to contact the New York Legal Assistance Group's (NYLAG) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants. See Burhans v. Amler, No. 06 CIV. 8325 (SCR), 2009 WL 10741846, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2009) (“At times, it is understandably difficult for pro se litigants to participate effectively in our legal system, and for this reason, the Court takes pains to afford pro se litigants great liberty in presenting and pursuing their claims. At the same time, the Court expects and requires that all litigants-pro se or not-be forthright and honest with the Court.”) The New York Legal Assistance Group's (NYLAG) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the Court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit).
To receive limited-scope assistance from the clinic, parties may complete the clinic's intake form on their computer or phone at: https://tinyurl.com/NYLAG-ProSe-OI. If parties have questions regarding the form or they are unable to complete it, they may leave a voicemail at (212) 659-5190. The Clinic is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., except on days when the Court is closed. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this order.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to recuse. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 106. The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this order to pro se Plaintiff at the address on the docket and show service on the docket.