From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tauro v. Allegheny Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 28, 2011
No. CV 09-354 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV 09-354 No. CV 08-1545

11-28-2011

In re: John J Tauro, Plaintiff, Pro Se v. Allegheny County, et al And Max Baer, et al


ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED


PETITION TO REASSIGN CASES

This Petition is directed to the Hon. Gary L. Lancaster, in his capacity as Chief Judge of the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Petitioner's Rule 60 b motions; and first and second requests for recusal, in the above numbered cases, are incorporated herein by reference.

1. Either perceived or actual bias, in any case, are grounds for recusal. These two cases are fraught with examples of demonstrated bias in favor of the defendants, as outlined in the filings above.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court in Carey v. Piphus 435 US 24, has held that procedural due process is absolute.
3. Judge Conti has ignored the law; rules of court; refused to allow evidence in support of claims; has reframed issues; has closed the cases with material fact issues outstanding; used the 'closed' status of the cases to deny legally sufficient filings; has allowed defendants to perpetrate a fraud upon the court; and has generally engaged in an improper obstruction, in the above matters.
4. The Petitioner has been denied due process; been subjected to unequal treatment; and has been prejudiced by the actions taken in the above matters.

CARY L. LANCASTER

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Tauro v. Allegheny Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 28, 2011
No. CV 09-354 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2011)
Case details for

Tauro v. Allegheny Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:In re: John J Tauro, Plaintiff, Pro Se v. Allegheny County, et al And Max…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Nov 28, 2011

Citations

No. CV 09-354 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2011)