Calix v. United States
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-09680
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Calix v. United States: Judge Preska denied Calix’s motions for a certificate of appealability and judicial disqualification.
Andre Calix’s ability to seek a certificate of appealability for the bail order and his request to have Judge Preska removed from the case.
What happened
In Calix v. United States, Andre Calix asked the court for permission to appeal an order denying bail while his request to reconsider his habeas case was pending. He also asked Judge Loretta A. Preska to step aside, arguing that her impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
The court said Calix did not need a certificate of appealability for an appeal from a bail order in this type of habeas case, and noted that he had already filed an appeal. The court also rejected his request for disqualification, explaining that unfavorable rulings alone do not show bias and that his other arguments had already been rejected or did not justify revisiting the issue.
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied both motions. The clerk was directed to close the listed docket entries.
The detailed version
- Calix v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-09680
- Loretta Preska
- May 14, 2025
Background
The order concerns two motions by Andre Calix in connection with his habeas proceedings: a motion for a certificate of appealability and a motion asking Judge Loretta A. Preska to disqualify herself. The motions followed the court’s October 31, 2024 denial of Calix’s request for bail while his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his habeas motion was pending. Calix also filed an appeal from the bail order.
Certificate of appealability
A certificate of appealability is a court document sometimes required before appealing the denial of certain habeas claims. The court held that Calix did not need one to appeal an order concerning bail because the order was collateral to the merits of his habeas claim. The court also noted that Calix had already filed an appeal from the bail order. The court therefore denied his motion for a certificate of appealability.
Disqualification motion
Calix sought disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which requires a judge to step aside when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that adverse rulings, by themselves, do not establish judicial bias or prejudice.
The court rejected Calix’s challenges to rulings that continued the trial date to allow competency proceedings. It noted that the Court of Appeals had previously held there was no speedy-trial violation from the delays and that determining Calix was competent to stand trial was not an abuse of discretion. The court also rejected Calix’s argument based on a lawsuit he filed against the court in 2016, explaining that it had already ruled that recusal was not warranted on that basis and that Calix had not identified a compelling reason to revisit that ruling. Finally, the court cited its extensive familiarity with the case and the judicial-efficiency interest in having the same judge continue to handle it.
Disposition
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied the motion for a certificate of appealability and denied the motion to disqualify. The clerk was directed to close the specified docket entries in the civil and criminal matters.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.