Leonichev v. Knoll
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:25-cv-04959
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Leonichev v. Knoll, Judge Seibel ordered Leonichev to stop filing about disqualification and docket issues, while offering clarification at a scheduled conference.
Alexey Leonichev was ordered to stop submitting materials about the specified issues; the parties were reminded to comply with court orders, and Leonichev was reminded of his response deadline.
What happened
In Leonichev v. Knoll, Alexey Leonichev repeatedly asked Judge Cathy Seibel to step aside, apparently believing that the court had taken away his right to a jury trial. The court said it had not made any decision denying him a jury trial.
Leonichev also continued to argue that the defendants had failed to respond, that several court orders were false, and that the docket entries assigning the case were invalid. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that the challenged documents and docket entries were legitimate court or clerk records. The court also objected to statements about lawyers or court personnel based on their national origin or ancestry.
Judge Seibel ordered Leonichev not to submit anything further about these issues and reminded him that his response to the defendants’ pre-motion letter was due July 24, 2025. She said she would provide further clarification at the telephone conference scheduled for July 31, 2025.
The detailed version
- Leonichev v. Knoll · No. 7:25-cv-04959
- Cathy Seibel
- July 17, 2025
Background
Alexey Leonichev filed repeated documents seeking Judge Cathy Seibel’s disqualification, meaning that he wanted the judge removed from the case. The order states that the filings appeared to be based on Leonichev’s belief that the court had deprived him of a jury trial. Judge Seibel explained that she had not made such a decision and had only stated that every case, whether decided by a jury or by a judge, requires a presiding judge.
Leonichev also continued to claim that the defendants had defaulted. The court referred to an earlier explanation of why that claim was incorrect. Leonichev further asserted that court orders identified as ECF Nos. 23, 32, and 42 were false. The court rejected that assertion, stating that they were orders entered by Judge Seibel and that the parties were required to comply with them.
The order also addressed Leonichev’s claim that docket entries assigning the case to Judge Seibel and designating Magistrate Judge Krause were false. The court explained that those entries were made by the Clerk, whose duties include randomly assigning cases. The court added that docket entries and text orders do not need an electronic document stamp to be legitimate. Finally, the court directed Leonichev to refrain from making statements against lawyers, court personnel, or others based on perceived national origin or ancestry.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that dissatisfaction with a party’s legal circumstances, disagreement with legal rulings, or unhappiness with case-management decisions does not provide a valid basis for disqualification. The order did not state that the court was ruling on the underlying claims in the case.
Order
The court ordered Leonichev not to submit anything further concerning the disqualification requests, alleged default, challenged court orders, or challenged docket entries. It stated that further clarification could be provided at the already scheduled July 31, 2025 telephone conference. The court also reminded Leonichev that his response to the defendants’ pre-motion letter was due July 24, 2025. Judge Cathy Seibel entered the order on July 17, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.