Qosja v. Krasniqi
- James Oetken
- 1:25-cv-02995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Qosija v. Krasniqi, Judge Oetken denied Krasniqi’s recusal motion and related motion for a stay.
Safete Krasniqi’s requests for Judge J. Paul Oetken’s recusal and for a stay were denied; the underlying case was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Arben Qosija v. Safete Krasniqi, Safete Krasniqi, who was representing herself, asked Judge J. Paul Oetken to step aside from the case. She argued that the court’s scheduling orders unfairly favored Qosija and created an appearance of partiality.
Krasniqi also asked the court to pause the case on the same grounds. The court reviewed her submissions and arguments and concluded that they did not show personal bias or a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. The court said its scheduling orders had sometimes given both parties additional time and had helped the time-sensitive case proceed fairly.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied both the motion for recusal and the related motion for a stay. The clerk was directed to close the two motions.
The detailed version
- Qosja v. Krasniqi · No. 1:25-cv-02995
- James Oetken
- June 6, 2025
Background
Respondent Safete Krasniqi, representing herself, moved under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(a) for Judge J. Paul Oetken’s recusal. Recusal means that a judge steps aside from a case. Section 144 addresses personal bias or prejudice, while Section 455(a) requires recusal when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Krasniqi argued that the court’s scheduling orders unfairly favored Petitioner Arben Qosija and created an appearance of partiality. She also moved for a stay, meaning a pause in the case, on the same basis.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed Krasniqi’s submissions and arguments and found no basis for recusal. It explained that the scheduling orders had sometimes given both parties additional time to file responses and had helped the time-sensitive case proceed promptly and fairly. The court also stated that a judge must not recuse when recusal is not required.
Ruling
The court denied the motion for recusal. It likewise denied Krasniqi’s motion for a stay. The clerk was directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 17 and 26.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.