Witcher v. New York City Department of Education

Background

On July 15, 2025, pro se plaintiff Selena C. Witcher filed a motion asking Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn to disqualify herself from the case. Disqualification, also called recusal, is the process by which a judge steps aside when the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned or when the judge has actual personal bias or prejudice. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 455 and explained that recusal motions are decided within the district court’s discretion.

Witcher’s arguments

Witcher argued that several events showed actual bias. First, she asserted that the case had not been handled professionally because the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had sent two claims back to the district court and the case remained assigned to Judge Netburn. Second, she claimed that Judge Netburn had said she was amazed that the case was sent back. Third, Witcher argued that the defendants’ failure to produce her Google Classroom records showed that the judge had not understood her document request. Finally, she argued that the denial of her request for a remote deposition showed that the judge was not reading or understanding her updates.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected each argument. It said that a case being sent back by an appeals court and remaining with the same judge did not show bias or wrongdoing. It also noted that judicial rulings almost never provide a valid basis for a bias motion and that it is normal for a judge to continue handling a case after it returns from an appeal.

The court stated that Witcher cited no transcript or order supporting her allegation about the judge’s alleged statement, and Judge Netburn did not recall making it. The court further explained that its comments and rulings, viewed in the context of the entire record, did not show bias. It said that the defendants’ failure to produce requested documents also did not demonstrate bias, noting that the court had held several conferences and extended discovery to address which documents were available.

As to the deposition, the court stated that it had read Witcher’s letters but that a plaintiff who files a case in the Southern District of New York must make herself available for examination there. The court said the defendants were entitled to an in-person deposition, while also attempting to reduce the burden on Witcher’s health by spreading the deposition over two days. It added that a judge’s failure to grant requested relief is not an adequate basis for recusal.

Ruling

The court stated that it had no personal bias or prejudice concerning Witcher and that she had not explained why the court’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The motion for disqualification was denied. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 154 and 155.