Opinion
20-CV-10473 (VEC) (OTW)
12-03-2021
SAMANTHA D. RAJAPAKSE, Plaintiff, v. SEYFARTH SHAW, et al., Defendant.
ORDER
ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff's motion for my recusal (ECF 65) is DENIED. The Court did not hold any hearing or conference in this matter on May 28, 2021, and prior adverse rulings are not evidence of bias. 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 [recusal] motion.”); Edwards v. Wilkie, No. 16-CV-8031 (LTS) (OTW), 2020 WL 1685824, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020). Pursuant to Judge Caproni's December 1, 2021 Order (ECF 63), Plaintiff is reminded that she “must obtain leave from [the undersigned] before filing any additional motions during the pendency of the discovery stay. Any request for such leave: (i) must be titled ‘Request for Leave to File a Motion;' (ii) it may not exceed one page in length, and (iii) it should explain why Plaintiff should be permitted to file the motion, notwithstanding the discovery stay that is in effect. Any failure to adhere to this requirement may result in an order to show cause why sanctions, including dismissal of this case, should not be imposed against Plaintiff.” The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.