Miller v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06532
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Miller v. United States, Judge Swain denied recusal and dismissed the complaint after Miller failed to amend it as ordered.
Maureen Miller’s action against the United States of America was dismissed, and her motion for recusal was denied. The court also denied her fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
What happened
In Miller v. United States, Maureen Miller sued the United States over an incident she said occurred in Battery Park in July 2024. She was representing herself and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court had ordered Miller to file an amended complaint and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal. Miller filed other documents, including requests for reconsideration, an interlocutory appeal, electronic filing permission, and recusal, but she never filed the required amended complaint.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the recusal motion and dismissed the complaint under the statutes governing screening of fee-waived cases. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal and directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action.
The detailed version
- Miller v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-06532
- Laura Swain
- June 3, 2025
Background
Maureen Miller brought this action against the United States of America concerning an incident alleged to have occurred in Battery Park in July 2024. Miller was proceeding without a lawyer and had been permitted to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status often called in forma pauperis.
Prior Orders and Filings
On February 6, 2025, the court directed Miller to file an amended complaint to address deficiencies in her original pleading. The court later reminded her that failure to file the amended complaint within the permitted time would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief and on immunity grounds. On April 4, 2025, the court denied Miller’s requests for reconsideration and for permission to appeal before final judgment, denied without prejudice her request to participate in electronic filing, and gave her an additional 20 days to comply. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted.
Miller filed other documents, including a motion for a conference, challenges to the February 6 order, a motion for reconsideration, a request for an interlocutory appeal, a request for electronic filing permission, and a motion asking the judge to recuse herself. She did not file an amended complaint.
Recusal Motion
The court explained that recusal is required when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It found that Miller’s request was based on the judge’s handling of the case rather than conduct outside the judicial process. The court concluded that the motion did not establish a basis for recusal and denied it.
Dismissal and Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), which govern screening of complaints filed by people proceeding without paying the filing fee. The court relied on the reasons stated in its February 6, 2025 order. The opinion provided here does not include that earlier order’s full analysis. The court denied the motion for recusal, directed the Clerk to terminate that motion, directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.