Carson v. McGuinness
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-06776
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Carson v. McGuinness, Judge Karas denied Joseph Carson’s request to disqualify the court based on alleged impartiality concerns.
Joseph Carson’s request for the court’s disqualification was denied. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to mail him copies of specified orders.
What happened
In Carson v. McGuinness, Joseph Carson, representing himself, asked the court to disqualify itself from deciding his case. He cited the court’s 2019 decision involving the police officers who arrested him and said his former appellate lawyer had represented those officers.
Carson argued that the court’s familiarity with the officers could make its impartiality reasonably questionable. He asked the court either to disqualify itself or to decide the case impartially.
Judge Karas denied the motion pursuant to the court’s February 10, 2025 order. The court also asked the Clerk of Court to mail Carson copies of that order and the previous order.
The detailed version
- Carson v. McGuinness · No. 7:23-cv-06776
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 24, 2025
Request
Joseph Carson, identified as a self-represented petitioner, submitted an application asking the district court to disqualify itself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). That statute addresses circumstances in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Carson’s stated basis
Carson said that the court had ruled in 2019 in favor of the police officers who arrested him. He also stated that his appellate counsel, Alex J. Smith, had represented those officers in that earlier matter. Carson argued that the court’s familiarity with the officers created a possibility that the court would not be impartial in deciding a matter concerning his freedom. He requested either disqualification or an impartial decision.
Ruling
The order states: “Pursuant to the Court’s order issued on February 10, 2025, Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied.” The court also requested that the Clerk of Court mail Carson copies of the February 10 order and the previous order identified as Docket No. 34. The provided text does not explain the court’s reasoning for denying the motion.
Party and caption information
The supplied case name is Carson v. McGuinness, while the reproduced application caption names D. Barometre, Superintendent of Otisville Correctional Facility, as respondent. A footnote states that Carson was no longer in the custody of T. McGuinness and that D. Barometre should be substituted as respondent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.