Moskovits v. Bank of America N.A.
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-10537
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Moskovits v. Bank of America NA, Chief Judge McMahon denied recusal, extended the filing deadline, and warned noncompliance would lead to dismissal without prejudice.
Alexander Moskovits was affected by the denial of his recusal motion, the extension of the filing-fee deadline, and the warning that his action would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not comply. The defendants were not addressed on the merits.
What happened
In Moskovits v. Bank of America NA, Alexander Moskovits filed a complaint without a lawyer. The court had ordered him to either pay the filing fees or request permission to proceed without paying them in advance.
Moskovits asked the judge to step aside, arguing that the case had been improperly assigned to her docket and that this created an appearance of bias. The court explained that recusal requires facts that would cause an objective observer to question the judge’s impartiality, and that ordinary judicial rulings generally are not enough.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied the recusal motion because the case’s assignment and the filing-fee order provided no basis to infer bias. She granted Moskovits 30 more days to pay the $402 fee or submit the required application; if he did not comply, the action would be dismissed without prejudice. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Moskovits v. Bank of America N.A. · No. 1:20-cv-10537
- Louis Stanton
- Jan. 7, 2021
Background
Alexander Moskovits filed a civil complaint without a lawyer on December 14, 2020. The court directed him to either pay the filing fees or submit an application to proceed without paying them in advance. The opinion states that the required fees totaled $402.
Moskovits then filed an affidavit asking the court to recuse, or remove, the judge from the case. He argued that the judge had improperly bypassed random judicial assignment by placing the matter on her docket, creating an appearance of impropriety and presumed bias.
Recusal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must recuse when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that the relevant question is whether an objective, disinterested observer who knew the underlying facts would have significant doubt that justice could be done without recusal. Bias generally must arise from conduct outside the judicial proceeding, not from the judge’s handling of the case. Judicial rulings ordinarily are not a valid basis for a bias motion unless they show deeply rooted favoritism or hostility that would make fair judgment impossible.
Court’s reasoning and rulings
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon stated that the matter had been assigned to her docket because she was serving as Chief Judge. She also explained that she issued the filing-fee order because the case could not proceed until Moskovits either paid the fee or requested permission to proceed without paying it in advance. The court found no facts that would cause an objective observer to infer bias and denied Moskovits’s motion for recusal.
The court granted Moskovits an extension of time. Within 30 days of the order, he had to pay the $402 fee or submit an application to proceed without paying the fee in advance. If he complied, the Clerk’s Office would process the case under its procedures. If he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed without prejudice.
The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the appellate fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.