Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-10942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Komatsu v. City of New York, Judge Caproni denied reconsideration requests and denied his request to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
Towaki Komatsu, whose reconsideration requests were denied and whose request to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal from this order was denied.
What happened
In Towaki Komatsu v. The City of New York, the court considered Mr. Komatsu’s request to reconsider an earlier order. That earlier order had denied several motions, including his request that Judge Caproni step aside and his request to reconsider an April 14 order.
The court denied Mr. Komatsu’s request to reconsider the denial of recusal, explaining that his additional discussion of a federal criminal case did not identify information relevant to recusal. The court also denied his request to reconsider the denial of his first reconsideration motion, and denied any additional relief requested in the second motion.
Judge Caproni stated that the order did not prevent Mr. Komatsu from appealing the April 23 order, which he had already appealed. The court denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal from this order, finding that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10942
- Valerie Caproni
- May 4, 2021
Background
On April 14, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against certain Defendants and referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for general pretrial management and preparation of a report and recommendation on dispositive motions. Mr. Komatsu then filed a motion asking Judge Caproni to recuse herself, an objection to the referral that the Court treated as a motion to withdraw the reference, a first motion for reconsideration, and a letter motion seeking further relief.
On April 23, 2021, the Court denied all four motions. Mr. Komatsu then filed the Second Motion for Reconsideration, asking the Court to reconsider its denial of his recusal motion and its denial of his First Motion for Reconsideration.
Rulings
The Court denied Mr. Komatsu’s request to reconsider the denial of his recusal motion. A recusal motion asks a judge to step aside from a case. The Court said that Mr. Komatsu’s discussion of the federal criminal proceeding against him was not relevant to recusal and that the Court had not overlooked any relevant information. The Court applied the strict standard for reconsideration, under which a party generally must identify controlling law or information that the court overlooked.
The Court also denied Mr. Komatsu’s request to reconsider the denial of his First Motion for Reconsideration. It stated that the local rules do not provide for multiple reconsideration motions and that Mr. Komatsu had not identified an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. To the extent the Second Motion for Reconsideration sought additional relief, that request was also denied for the reasons stated in the April 23 order.
The Court stated that nothing in the order prevented Mr. Komatsu from appealing the April 23 order, and noted that he had already filed a notice of appeal. The Court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for that appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Mr. Komatsu.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the request to reconsider the denial of the recusal motion, denied the request to reconsider the denial of the First Motion for Reconsideration, denied any additional relief sought in the Second Motion for Reconsideration, and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal from this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.