Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

a I l””;““‘—"“‘*""—"*—···——··——~—l——~——%~.—.iI.-i.
{ ’ { ‘ Case 3:03-cv-00696-JBA Document 25 Filed O3/16/2004 Page __*—
(
i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i
i DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I I
I Anthony Toms 2 F! L E B (
: Hm I5 ii me FHl”(l·—l (
V, : No- 3:O3CV696 (JBA) UT; i3%&ZEi?;§L];`iJ()!j§fE" i
John Tmmblyr at al. f°R*3· rmi :;,=..¤.)I)re.-;t-ms). {
)


Plaintiff's recusal motion is based on the futility of his (
efforts t0 obtain judicial relief in a timely fashion. While
plaintiff's criticism of the Court's delay is well~founded, such
case management failure does not provide a basis for judicial
recusal. Recusal is required "in any proceeding in which [a V
judicial officer‘s] impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The determination of bias "should be made
on the basis of conduct extrajudicial in nature as distinguished
from conduct within a judicial context." In re International g
Business Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 928 (2d Cir. 1980) i
(quotation omitted). Because plaintiff has not provided a basis i
for concluding that the Court acted deliberately, intentionally g
or maliciously in its delay in ruling on plaintiff's claim, there J
are no grounds for disqualification. Recusal is appropriate to i
(
avoid the appearance of partiality; it is not to be used merely I
to avoid the burdens imposed by a case. gge Wright, Miller &
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, §3549 (2d Ed. 1984) at
)



1 M U ' Case 3:03-cv-00696-JBA Document 25 Filed O3/16/2004 Page20f2 1
1 1
623 (Section 455(a) "should not be used by judges to avoid 1
sitting on difficult or controversial cases.") (quoting S. Rep. F
No. 93-419, at 5 (1973)). (
1 Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Recusal [Doc. # 15] is 1
1 denied. 1
1 n
IT is so oausnsn. (
-. /f`\_ ./7 4/
° L xi ‘··—-——-
J net Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. I
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this l~5 day of March 2004.
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
2 1
1