Celli v. New York City
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-09743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Celli v. New York City, Judge Cronan denied recusal, granted an extension, and warned of possible sanctions for frivolous filings.
Lucio Celli’s recusal motion was denied, while his request for more time was granted through June 24, 2025; the Court also warned that baseless filings could lead to sanctions.
What happened
In Celli v. New York City, Lucio Celli asked Judge John P. Cronan to step aside from the case and requested more time to respond to the court’s orders.
The court denied the request for recusal, finding that an objective observer would not question Judge Cronan’s impartiality. It granted Celli’s request for an extension, moving the deadline for objections to a report and recommendation and for a response about a possible filing injunction to June 24, 2025.
Judge Cronan warned that no further extensions would be granted and that baseless filings could lead to sanctions. The clerk was directed to close the docket entry for the recusal motion.
The detailed version
- Celli v. New York City · No. 1:24-cv-09743
- John Cronan
- June 3, 2025
Requests before the Court
Lucio Celli moved for Judge John P. Cronan’s recusal or disqualification. Recusal means that a judge steps aside from a case because impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Celli also requested a two-week extension of time to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.
Recusal ruling
The Court denied Celli’s recusal motion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal is required when an objective, disinterested observer who knows the relevant facts would have significant doubt about whether justice would be done without the judge’s recusal. The Court stated that Celli had not identified facts that would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality or raise a legitimate question about personal bias, prejudice, or an interest in the case.
Extension of time
The Court construed Celli’s request as seeking more time both to object to Judge Lehrburger’s May 27, 2025 Report and Recommendation and to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause why a filing injunction should not be imposed. The request was granted. The deadlines were extended to June 24, 2025, and the Court stated that no further extensions would be granted.
Warning and disposition
The Court noted that Celli had recently filed a voluminous amount of frivolous motions and submissions. It cautioned that abusing the Court’s official processes with baseless filings could result in sanctions. The clerk was directed to close Docket Number 182, which contained the recusal motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.