Abraham v. Leigh
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-05429
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abraham v. Leigh, Judge Failla denied Abraham’s second recusal motion and directed sealing of specified docket entries containing sensitive information.
Robyn Abraham’s second recusal request was denied; Judge Failla remained assigned to the case; and the court and parties retained access to the specified sealed docket entries, which concerned sensitive information about Abraham’s former counsel.
What happened
In Abraham v. Leigh, Robyn Abraham asked Judge Katherine Polk Failla to recuse herself from the case for a second time. The court reviewed Abraham’s motion papers.
The court said the motion did not identify events occurring after the court’s earlier order denying Abraham’s first recusal motion. It also said that most of Abraham’s repeated allegations were factually inaccurate, and that rulings against a party do not by themselves show the bias or prejudice required for recusal.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the second recusal motion. She also directed the Clerk of Court to seal specified docket entries containing irrelevant and sensitive personal information about Abraham’s former counsel, making them viewable only by the court and the parties.
The detailed version
- Abraham v. Leigh · No. 1:17-cv-05429
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 14, 2020
Background
The court considered Plaintiff Robyn Abraham’s second motion asking Judge Katherine Polk Failla to recuse herself. Recusal is the removal of a judge from a case because circumstances may require the judge’s impartiality to be questioned.
Recusal motion
The court stated that Abraham’s motion did not appear to rely on events occurring after the court’s August 28, 2020 order denying her first recusal motion. The court also stated that, for reasons explained in several earlier orders, the allegations Abraham repeated in support of the second motion were almost entirely factually inaccurate. The court further explained that allegations that did not misstate the facts—such as references to decisions ruling against Abraham—were not enough to require recusal. It cited the principle that rulings adverse to a party are not, by themselves, evidence of the bias or prejudice required for recusal.
Disposition
The court denied Abraham’s second motion for recusal. The court also noted that Abraham continued to place irrelevant and sensitive personal information about her former counsel on the public docket. It directed the Clerk of Court to seal docket entries 959-563 so that they would be viewable only by the court and the parties.
Effect of the order
The order left Judge Failla on the case and restricted access to the specified docket entries. The opinion does not explain the unusual docket-entry range written as “959-563.”
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.