Celli v. New York Department of Education
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-10455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Celli v. New York Department of Education, Judge Swain denied all post-dismissal applications, closed the case, and denied status to appeal without paying fees.
Lucio Celli’s recusal, relief, reconsideration, and other applications were denied. The case was closed, and future filings in the matter were limited to documents directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
What happened
In Celli v. New York Department of Education, Lucio Celli, who was representing himself, filed eleven applications after the court dismissed his complaint, including requests for recusal, relief, reconsideration, and several letters. He filed another motion two days later.
The court denied the recusal request because the earlier ruling was not a valid basis to question the judge’s impartiality. It also denied the requests under Rules 59 and 60 because Celli did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or facts, or that any other required grounds for relief existed. The court said his letters provided no basis for relief.
Judge Swain denied all applications filed under docket numbers 15 through 28 and closed the case. The court said it would accept only filings directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied Celli permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Celli v. New York Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-10455
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 1, 2022
Background
Lucio Celli filed the action without a lawyer. On January 4, 2022, the court dismissed his complaint. On January 25, Celli filed eleven applications, including a motion asking Judge Swain to recuse herself, a motion for relief, five motions seeking reconsideration under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and five letters. On January 27, he filed another motion under Rules 59 and 60.
The opinion states that Celli’s recusal allegations included claims that judges had conspired against him, concealed associations, committed fraud on the court, and accepted bribes. The opinion also notes that some allegations referred to Celli’s criminal proceedings, in which he pleaded guilty to transmitting threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The court’s discussion of those proceedings was not the basis for the order’s disposition of the applications.
Recusal motion
A recusal motion asks a judge to step aside when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that judicial rulings almost never provide a valid basis for recusal. It found that Celli’s motion was largely based on the court’s order dismissing this action, and that no disinterested observer would infer bribery from the court’s rulings. The court also noted that the action had already concluded and that no remaining matters required Judge Swain to preside. The court therefore denied the motion for recusal.
Rules 59(e) and 60(b) motions
A Rule 59(e) motion seeks to alter or amend a judgment and generally requires showing that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Celli had not made that showing and denied his Rule 59(e) motions.
Rule 60(b) permits relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court found that Celli had not shown that any of the first five grounds applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which requires extraordinary circumstances and must be based on a reason different from the grounds listed in clauses (1) through (5). The court found that Celli had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances.
The court described Celli’s letters as frivolous and malicious. It said the letters included false assertions that Judge Swain and other judges had accepted bribes, and concluded that the letters provided no basis for relief.
Disposition
The court denied all of Celli’s applications filed as ECF 15 through ECF 28. It closed the case under docket number 21-CV-10455 and stated that it would accept for filing in the matter only documents directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.