Miller v. Apple, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-01172
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Miller v. Apple, Inc., Judge John P. Cronan denied Miller’s motions seeking his recusal and disqualification.
John Williams Miller’s requests that Judge John P. Cronan step aside were denied; the court directed that Docket Numbers 85 and 102 be closed.
What happened
In Miller v. Apple, Inc., John Williams Miller asked Judge John P. Cronan to step aside from the case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims against Apple.
Judge Cronan said Miller provided no facts that would make a reasonable person question the judge’s fairness or suggest personal bias, prejudice, or an interest in the case. The court also said that naming the presiding judge as a defendant does not require the judge to step aside.
Judge John P. Cronan denied both motions and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Numbers 85 and 102.
The detailed version
- Miller v. Apple, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01172
- John Cronan
- Apr. 1, 2025
Motions and Standard
John Williams Miller filed a motion asking Judge John P. Cronan to recuse himself and another motion seeking the judge’s disqualification. Recusal means a judge steps aside from a case. The court evaluated the requests under 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when the judge has personal bias, prejudice, or an interest in the action.
Court’s Reasoning
Judge Cronan found that Miller had not presented facts meeting either standard. The court also addressed Miller’s notice claiming that Judge Cronan was named as a defendant in the action. The court stated that a party cannot require a judge to recuse or disqualify himself merely by naming the judge as a defendant.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan denied Miller’s motions for recusal and disqualification. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Numbers 85 and 102. This order addressed the judge-related motions and did not decide the underlying claims against Apple.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.