Ajaj v. United States
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:16-cv-05031
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Ajaj v. United States asks Judge Kaplan to recuse himself; the provided text states the standards but does not show a ruling.
Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj's motion asks that Judge Lewis Kaplan be removed from the case and that the matter be reassigned, but the provided text does not show the effect of the motion.
What happened
In Ajaj v. United States, Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj, representing himself, asks the judge to step aside from the case. The motion cites federal laws requiring recusal when a judge has personal bias or when impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Ajaj argues that the requirements for recusal under Sections 144 and 455 were met. The provided text discusses how courts should evaluate allegations of bias, but it does not state the specific facts Ajaj relies on beyond the legal arguments shown.
Judge Lewis Kaplan's ruling is not included in the provided text. The text therefore does not show whether the recusal motion was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
The detailed version
- Ajaj v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-05031
- Lewis Kaplan
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion asking Judge Lewis Kaplan to recuse himself from the case and to have the matter reassigned. The motion cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(a), along with the statutory procedure for recusal motions.
Arguments in the Motion
The motion states that Section 144 applies when a party files a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging that the judge has personal bias or prejudice against the party or in favor of another party. It argues that, when the affidavit is legally sufficient and meets the procedural requirements, the allegations must be treated as true for purposes of deciding whether recusal is required.
The motion also cites Section 455(a), which requires a judge to disqualify himself when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The provided text discusses the strict construction of Section 144 and argues that the wording of Section 455(a) favors recusal when there is a reasonable concern about impartiality.
Disposition
The provided opinion text ends while discussing the recusal standards. It does not include Judge Kaplan's analysis of Ajaj's allegations or any order granting, denying, or otherwise resolving the motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.