Davidson v. Lee
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:17-cv-09820
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Davidson v. Lee, Judge Briccetti deferred ruling on recusal, ordered plaintiff to provide information, and postponed the conference.
Ronald Davidson was required to explain his missed conference, provide more information about his recusal motion, and attend the rescheduled conference; failure to comply could lead to dismissal.
What happened
Davidson v. Lee concerns Ronald Davidson’s failure to attend a scheduled conference after his lawyer was allowed to withdraw. Davidson also asked the court to recuse itself based on an alleged conflict from a prior civil-rights case.
The court deferred ruling on the recusal request and ordered Davidson to explain his absence and provide more details about the alleged prior relationship by February 7, 2020. It postponed the conference to February 24, 2020, and warned that failing to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute or obey court orders.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the recusal request or the underlying case.
The detailed version
- Davidson v. Lee · No. 7:17-cv-09820
- Cathy Seibel
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
On November 4, 2019, the court granted Davidson’s counsel’s request to withdraw and scheduled a conference for January 17, 2020. The court directed Davidson to attend either through new counsel or in person. The order was mailed to the address listed on the docket.
Defense counsel attended the January 17 conference, but Davidson did not appear and did not provide an explanation.
On January 16, 2020, Davidson filed a motion asking the court to recuse itself, along with a supporting affidavit. He alleged that, when the judge had been an associate at Townley & Updike in the early or mid-1980s, the judge had represented Davidson as pro bono counsel in a Section 1983 civil-rights action in the district. Davidson said they met once or twice, that the meetings were strained, and that he believed the judge had issued adverse rulings because of personal prejudice and dislike.
Rulings and Orders
The court deferred ruling on Davidson’s recusal motion. The court stated that it had no recollection of the events described in the affidavit and ordered Davidson to file a letter by February 7, 2020. The letter had to explain his failure to attend the January 17 conference and provide additional details about the alleged prior representation, including the names of people involved, the docket number, the judge assigned to that case, other attorneys involved, and any other helpful information.
The court adjourned the January 17 conference to February 24, 2020, at 12:30 p.m. It warned that failure to file the letter or failure to attend the rescheduled conference in person or through counsel could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Effect of the Order
This order did not resolve Davidson’s recusal motion or the underlying claims. It required further information and future attendance, while warning that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.