Pasha v. New York State Department of Health

Nature of the filing

The supplied text is primarily Talha S. Pasha’s motion asking Judge Edgardo Ramos to recuse, or disqualify, himself from the case. The court’s January 23, 2025 memo endorsement states only: “Defendants are directed to respond by January 30, 2025.” The text does not include a decision on whether recusal is warranted.

Background

Pasha’s lawsuit names the New York State Department of Health and Tandym Group, formerly known as the ExecuSearch Group. He alleges discrimination and retaliation arising from the termination of his employment. The motion discusses several earlier disputes concerning Pasha’s efforts to amend his complaint, add defendants and claims, and strike statements and communications from the court record.

According to Pasha, the court previously denied requests involving the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, amendments to the complaint, and removal of allegations describing his communications as “harassment” and “bullying.” He also states that the court later allowed some amendments involving claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and permitted Anida Fregjaj to be added as a defendant, while directing him to file an amended complaint.

Recusal arguments

Pasha invokes 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires a federal judge to disqualify himself when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when he has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. He argues that Judge Ramos’s rulings and wording, considered together with defendants’ earlier accusations and the court’s instructions about the amended complaint, create an appearance of partiality.

A central complaint concerns the court’s instruction that Pasha file the amended complaint first and that the defendants would then have an opportunity to argue whether its allegations were sufficient. Pasha contrasts that instruction with earlier orders that had directed the defendants to file an answer or response by specified dates. He contends that the newer instruction could guide the defendants’ litigation strategy and expose the amended complaint to an early challenge.

Pasha also argues that the court did not adequately clarify which additional facts and claims he could include, and that earlier rulings failed to address arguments concerning the definition of an “employer” under Title VII and evidence involving the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. He maintains that the alleged pattern shows deep-seated favoritism or antagonism and makes fair judgment impossible. He states that the motion was filed promptly after he learned the applicable recusal standard and that he is not relying solely on unfavorable rulings.

Court action and disposition

The court directed the defendants to respond by January 30, 2025. The supplied text does not state that the motion was granted, denied, dismissed, or otherwise resolved. It also does not decide the merits of Pasha’s discrimination, retaliation, or other claims.

Classification basis

This is classified as a procedural order because the court’s shown action concerns the ancillary issue of judicial recusal and directs a response; the supplied text does not reach the merits of the underlying employment dispute.