Jackson v. Annucci
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jackson v. Annucci, Judge Halpern denied Lavogia Jackson’s request to recuse him, finding no reasonable question about his impartiality.
Lavogia Jackson’s request to have Judge Philip M. Halpern removed from the case was denied; the case remained before Judge Halpern.
What happened
In Jackson v. Annucci, Lavogia Jackson, who was representing herself, asked the court to remove Judge Philip M. Halpern from the case. She based the request on her understanding of when the defendants had been served.
The court explained that summonses were issued on April 16, 2020, but service occurred later: six defendants were served on June 6, 2020, and one was served on July 23, 2020. The court also had granted defense counsel more time to respond because counsel was on military leave.
Judge Halpern denied the recusal request. He ruled that these events did not show bias and that his impartiality could not reasonably be questioned.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-02008
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 4, 2020
Background
Lavogia Jackson filed a letter addressed to Chief Judge Colleen McMahon. The court treated the letter as a request for Judge Philip M. Halpern to recuse himself, meaning to step aside from the case. The opinion states that Jackson was proceeding without a lawyer and without having to pay the filing fee.
Jackson’s request appeared to rely on her assertion that the U.S. Marshals Service had served the defendants on April 16, 2020. The court reviewed the docket and explained that summonses were issued on that date, but service was not completed then. Six defendants were served on June 6, 2020, and one defendant was served on July 23, 2020. Afterward, defense counsel requested more time to answer or file a motion because counsel was on military leave, and the court granted that request.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must step aside when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court also cited Liteky v. United States.
Ruling
The court denied Jackson’s request for recusal. Judge Halpern concluded that the docket showed no basis to infer impartiality or bias and that his impartiality could not reasonably be questioned. The Clerk was directed to mail Jackson a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.