Straw v. Dentons US LLP
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-03312
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Straw v. Dentons US LLP, Judge Koeltl denied reconsideration and recusal requests after again dismissing Straw’s complaint.
Andrew U.D. Straw and Dentons US LLP, along with the other defendants identified in the complaint; the court’s rulings also concerned Judge John G. Koeltl’s participation in the case.
What happened
Straw v. Dentons US LLP involved a self-represented plaintiff’s request to remove Judge Koeltl and strike the court’s earlier dismissal of his complaint. The complaint had previously been dismissed, and the court dismissed it again while reconsidering that decision.
The court said it could consider the request as a motion asking to change or set aside the dismissal. It found that Straw gave no reason for changing the decision and showed no extraordinary circumstances. The court also said that disagreement with a judge’s ruling is not a reason to remove the judge.
Judge John G. Koeltl again dismissed the complaint and denied Straw’s request for recusal. He directed the clerk to close the case and mail the opinion to Straw.
The detailed version
- Straw v. Dentons US LLP · No. 1:20-cv-03312
- John Koeltl
- July 15, 2020
Background
The court had dismissed the self-represented plaintiff’s complaint on July 11, 2020. Two days later, Straw filed a motion to remove Judge Koeltl and strike the July 11 order. Straw argued that the dismissal was issued without a prior request from a party and violated due process.
The opinion explains that Judge Stanton had earlier dismissed the complaint, then granted Straw’s motions seeking recusal and reconsideration. After Judge Stanton recused himself, the reconsideration question was assigned to Judge Koeltl. On reconsideration, Judge Koeltl again dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of a case filed without prepaying fees when the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
Reconsideration
The court noted that Straw had filed a notice of appeal and that an appeal ordinarily removes the district court’s authority over the parts of the case involved in the appeal. But the court concluded that, if Straw’s July 13 filing was a motion to reconsider under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allowed the court to decide it.
The court found that Straw had provided no reason for relief under Rule 59(e), which permits an order to be changed in limited circumstances such as a legal or factual error, new evidence, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court also found no extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). To the extent the court lacked jurisdiction, it stated that it would deny the motion under Rule 62.1 for the same reasons.
Recusal
To the extent the filing sought Judge Koeltl’s recusal, the court stated that it lacked jurisdiction to decide that request. It nevertheless stated that it would deny the request under Rule 62.1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), recusal is required when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court found that Straw offered no evidence of partiality and merely disagreed with the dismissal. It explained that disagreement with a judicial ruling is not a valid basis for recusal and is ordinarily a matter for appeal.
Disposition
Judge John G. Koeltl stated that the court had reconsidered the July 11 dismissal and, on reconsideration, again dismissed the complaint. The court also denied Straw’s July 13 motion for recusal. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.