Summary
The Eastern District of New York denied Plaintiff Richard Thomas’s second motion seeking judicial disqualification, relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), and reassignment of the case. The court held that the recusal motion was untimely and meritless because the alleged financial and former-law-firm connections were too remote, indirect, or speculative. The court also found no exceptional circumstances warranting vacatur of the judgment and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith for purposes of in forma pauperis status.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the judge was required to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) or § 455(b)(4) based on the judge's former law-firm capital account, index-fund investment, or alleged connection between the former firm and Amazon.
- Whether the second recusal motion was timely when filed eight months after entry of judgment and closure of the case.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) based on alleged judicial bias, the certification concerning in forma pauperis status on appeal, alleged favoritism, or alleged false statements.
- Whether the asserted bias required recusal under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.
Holdings
- A postjudgment recusal motion filed eight months after judgment and case closure was untimely where the movant provided no adequate explanation for failing to raise the issue earlier.
- Recusal was not warranted because the judge's former capital account with Dechert LLP, index-fund investment, and alleged connection to Dechert's unrelated representation were remote, indirect, contingent, or speculative interests that did not create a reasonable question about impartiality or constitute a disqualifying financial interest.
- The asserted bias did not require recusal under the Due Process Clause because Plaintiff failed to show a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in the case.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) because he failed to present highly convincing evidence of exceptional circumstances, and his allegations merely sought to relitigate prior rulings.
- The court's certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith did not discriminate against Plaintiff, prevent him from filing a notice of appeal, or foreclose his ability to seek in forma pauperis status from the Court of Appeals.
Key quotations
“There is as much obligation upon a judge not to recuse himself when there is no occasion for him to do so as there is for him to do so when there is.” (Discussion I)
“Rule 60(b) is “a mechanism for extraordinary judicial relief invoked only if the moving party demonstrates exceptional circumstances.”” (Discussion II)
“A ‘mere disagreement with the district court’s underlying judgment does not present extraordinary circumstances’ justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6), and Rule 60(b)(6) is not a mechanism to appeal a judgment with which a party disagrees.” (Discussion II.B)
Factual background
Plaintiff based his recusal request on the judge's former capital account with Dechert LLP and ownership of shares in a Vanguard index fund that held Amazon stock. Plaintiff also asserted that Dechert represented Amazon in an unrelated matter, but the record showed that Dechert represented the United States Chamber of Commerce and filed an amicus brief in that matter. Plaintiff further argued that the judge's certification denying in forma pauperis status for a potential appeal, prior rulings, and statements in the dismissal order demonstrated bias and justified vacatur of the judgment.
Procedural history
The court previously granted Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a federal claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Judgment was entered and the case was closed on January 28, 2025. Plaintiff's first disqualification motion and request for a new trial or amended judgment were denied, after which he filed this second disqualification and Rule 60(b) motion.