Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-09173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Fecteau v. Mount Vernon: Judge Karas denied Fecteau’s request to remove the magistrate judge based on alleged bias and unfavorable rulings.
Matthew J. Fecteau’s request to remove the magistrate judge was denied; the order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon, Matthew J. Fecteau, representing himself, asked the court to remove the magistrate judge from his civil-rights case. He argued that the court’s conduct and rulings created an appearance of bias, including its focus on his communications with defendants rather than his eviction-related claims.
The court rejected that argument. It explained that unfavorable rulings, critical comments, and opinions based on events in the current case generally are not enough to show that a judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The court also ruled that Fecteau did not meet the separate procedural requirements for a bias request because he submitted an unsworn declaration instead of a sworn affidavit.
Judge Karas’s court denied Fecteau’s motion for recusal and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The order stated that the substantive motions remained before Judge Karas, while the magistrate judge handled discovery and other non-dispositive pretrial matters.
The detailed version
- Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:23-cv-09173
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 22, 2025
Background
Matthew J. Fecteau, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Mount Vernon, Patrick Holder, David Gibson, Mario Stewart, Montika Jones, Charlene Humphreys, and Dawnette McClaren-Nelson. The opinion identifies the City of Mount Vernon, Holder, Gibson, Stewart, Jones, and McClaren-Nelson as the City Defendants and identifies Humphreys separately.
Fecteau moved to recuse, meaning to require the magistrate judge to stop handling matters in the case. He argued that the court’s conduct and rulings created an appearance of bias and partiality. He complained that the court focused on matters including his interest in a female attorney, complaints, postcards, and allegedly threatening or harassing communications, rather than the eviction of his neighbor. The City Defendants opposed the motion.
Legal standards
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must step aside when a reasonable person who knows all the facts could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The court explained that the standard is objective and does not require proof of actual bias. It also stated that judicial rulings alone almost never establish a valid basis for recusal. Opinions formed from facts or events in the current proceedings ordinarily do not require recusal unless they show such deep-seated favoritism or hostility that fair judgment would be impossible.
The court also considered 28 U.S.C. § 144, which requires a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice. The opinion states that the requirements include a sworn affidavit and, where applicable, a certification from counsel that the allegations are made in good faith. The court noted that Fecteau submitted an unsworn declaration rather than a sworn affidavit.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Fecteau’s request under Section 455 was based on the court’s rulings and actions in the current case. It stated that those rulings were not a proper basis for recusal. The court also noted that it had heard the parties’ arguments about threatening and harassing behavior and had directed Fecteau to stop threatening or harassing the City Defendants, Safety National’s employees, and their counsel.
The court further explained that the substantive motions remained before the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas. According to the opinion, the magistrate judge was addressing discovery and other non-dispositive pretrial motions, including matters involving alleged harassment. The court stated that critical or disapproving comments during a proceeding did not require recusal and expressed confidence that it was unbiased in fact and appearance.
The court separately held that Fecteau failed to satisfy Section 144’s procedural requirements because his declaration was unsworn. It therefore denied the recusal request under Section 144 as well.
Disposition
The court denied Fecteau’s motion for recusal. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the motion listed at Docket No. 163. The opinion does not decide the underlying eviction-related or other substantive claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.