Moskovits v. Bank of America N.A.

Background

Alexander Moskovits filed this self-represented action asserting claims under federal jurisdiction statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and Article 10 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The complaint concerned a state-court matter that Justice Barry Ostrager had dismissed. Chief Judge McMahon directed Moskovits either to pay the required filing fees or apply to proceed without paying them. Moskovits moved for Chief Judge McMahon’s recusal; she denied that motion. Moskovits then paid the fees, and the case was reassigned to Judge Stanton.

On January 20, 2021, the Clerk issued summonses, and the court ordered Moskovits to amend his complaint to address deficiencies. The order also stated that the defendants did not have to answer until further notice. On January 30, Moskovits moved under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) for Judge Stanton’s recusal and asked that the case be referred to Judge Broderick as related to an earlier closed case.

Recusal motion

Section 455(a) requires a judge to step aside when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that recusal generally must be based on conduct outside the judicial proceedings, not merely on rulings made in the case. Judicial rulings ordinarily are not enough unless they show deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.

Moskovits argued that the January 20 order requiring amendment was not authored in Judge Stanton’s chambers and that judges were coordinating to defend an improper exercise of judicial power. The court characterized these arguments as challenges based on judicial rulings rather than evidence of outside bias or prejudice. It also stated that, under the January 20 order, the complaint could not proceed because it failed to state a claim for relief and sued defendants who were immune from suit. The court denied the motion for recusal.

Referral motion

Moskovits also sought referral to Judge Broderick based on an earlier related case. The court explained that the Southern District of New York’s related-case rule presumptively treats a pending civil action as unrelated to a closed civil action. Because the earlier case was closed, the court denied the request for referral. The court also stated that the rule’s exception for a dismissed case that is refiled did not apply here.

Disposition

The court denied both Moskovits’s motion for recusal and his motion to have the case referred to Judge Broderick, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion. The order stated that, if Moskovits complied with the January 20 order, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he did not comply, or if the amended complaint did not correct the identified deficiencies, the action would be dismissed for the reasons stated in that earlier order.