Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni denied Alexandre’s request to remove her and denied permission to proceed without filing fees on an appeal.
The order directly affected Eddy Alexandre’s request to remove Judge Caproni and his request to proceed without paying filing fees on an appeal. The underlying case is brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission against Alexandre and EminiFX, Inc.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Eddy Alexandre, representing himself, asked Judge Valerie Caproni to step aside and have the case assigned to another judge. He argued that her rulings and comments showed bias in favor of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the court-appointed receiver.
Alexandre also argued that Judge Caproni’s former work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation raised concerns about her impartiality and that she had mishandled the case by setting a schedule for summary judgment, limiting discovery, and failing to recognize his right to file an answer. The court said these claims mischaracterized the case’s history.
Judge Caproni denied the request, finding no reason to question her impartiality. She also denied Alexandre permission to proceed without filing fees on an appeal of the order, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 13, 2025
Motion and requested relief
Eddy Alexandre, acting without a lawyer, moved under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 for Judge Valerie Caproni’s recusal, disqualification, and replacement by another judge. Recusal means a judge steps aside from a case because impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Alexandre argued that Judge Caproni had shown personal bias, favored the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the receiver, rejected his motions on the basis of assumed admissions, restricted discovery, opposed returning his laptop, and made comments showing that she did not believe him. He also relied on Judge Caproni’s past employment as chief counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and challenged the court’s handling of the case.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the challenged rulings and comments reflected Alexandre’s disagreements with the court’s decisions, not the deep-seated favoritism or antagonism required to show that fair judgment was impossible. It said its decisions had been based exclusively on legal and factual analysis. The court also held that a judge’s personal background and prior government employment were legally insufficient grounds for disqualification, particularly because the case involved a different government agency.
The court rejected Alexandre’s descriptions of the case’s procedural history. It stated that the court had adopted a summary-judgment briefing schedule voluntarily proposed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the receiver, and Alexandre; that the parties were responsible for conducting discovery they considered necessary; and that Alexandre had filed an answer to the complaint in August 2024. The court also said that motions by non-parties to intervene did not bear on the judge’s impartiality.
Disposition
The court denied the application for recusal, disqualification, and reassignment. Because it found no legal authority supporting Alexandre’s motion, it certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of the order before final judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees on that appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.