Shim-Larkin v. City of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:16-cv-06099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, Judge Nathan denied Plaintiff’s recusal motion, finding disagreement with rulings did not show reasonably questionable impartiality.
Heena Shim-Larkin’s request that Judge Nathan recuse herself was denied; the order also made a finding about the good-faith status of any appeal from it.
What happened
In Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, Heena Shim-Larkin asked the judge to step aside from the case. She argued that the judge had treated her arguments unfairly, made errors in decisions about sanctions and discovery, and failed to apply the proper legal standards.
The court said that disagreement with its decisions was not evidence of bias or improper conduct. It applied the rule requiring recusal when a fully informed, objective observer could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality.
Judge Nathan denied the motion. The court said Shim-Larkin could appeal the earlier decisions at the appropriate time and found that any appeal from this recusal order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Shim-Larkin v. City of New York · No. 1:16-cv-06099
- Alison Nathan
- Dec. 23, 2020
Background
Heena Shim-Larkin, who was proceeding without a lawyer, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) for Judge Alison J. Nathan to recuse, or step aside, from the case. The motion challenged earlier rulings concerning discovery and sanctions.
In February 2019, Magistrate Judge Fox sanctioned the City of New York and its former attorney, Scott Silverman, and reopened discovery to allow Shim-Larkin to depose an individual. Judge Nathan later found that the magistrate judge had clearly erred in imposing the sanctions and ruled that discovery should not be reopened. In September 2019, Magistrate Judge Fox sanctioned the City’s attorney, Dominique Saint-Fort. Judge Nathan affirmed that decision in part but reversed one sanction requiring Saint-Fort to distribute the magistrate judge’s decision to numerous colleagues.
Arguments and legal standard
Shim-Larkin argued that these rulings showed unfairness and bias. She contended that the court ignored her arguments supporting sanctions, considered arguments the City had only mentioned, failed to consider a case she cited, exceeded its authority by requiring her to combine four motions into one motion of no more than fifteen pages, and repeatedly disregarded binding legal authority and the obligation to read filings by unrepresented parties generously.
Section 455(a) requires a federal judge to recuse when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that recusal is required when an objective, fully informed observer would have significant doubt that justice would be done without recusal. Recusal decisions are left to the district court’s discretion.
Ruling
Judge Nathan denied the recusal motion. The court held that Shim-Larkin was arguing that the court’s decisions were legally wrong, but she presented no evidence or non-frivolous allegation of bias or improper judicial conduct that would make the court’s impartiality reasonably questionable. The court stated that she could exercise her appeal rights concerning the earlier decisions at the appropriate time.
The order denied the motion and resolved Docket Number 699. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court also found that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.