Tutora v. Aramark Correctional Services
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:17-cv-09170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tutora v. Aramark, Judge Karas denied Jeremy Tutora’s request for recusal because it relied on judicial rulings and case management, not outside bias.
Jeremy L. Tutora’s request to have Judge Kenneth M. Karas recuse himself was denied; the case remained before the court.
What happened
In Tutora v. Aramark Correctional Services, pro se plaintiff Jeremy L. Tutora asked the court to remove Judge Kenneth M. Karas from the case. He argued that several rulings and scheduling decisions showed that the judge could not be impartial.
Tutora pointed to a magistrate judge’s decision that Aramark’s chief executive did not have to give a deposition, the defendants’ deposition of Tutora, status conferences scheduled while he was in school, and the court’s use of written case-management orders. This was Tutora’s second request for recusal based on similar complaints.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the request. The court ruled that Tutora’s complaints concerned judicial rulings and management of the case, which generally do not show bias without evidence of bias from an outside source.
The detailed version
- Tutora v. Aramark Correctional Services · No. 7:17-cv-09170
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 23, 2022
Background
Pro se plaintiff Jeremy L. Tutora sought recusal, meaning that he asked Judge Kenneth M. Karas to step aside because of alleged bias or partiality. The defendants are Aramark Correctional Services and William Vaughn.
Tutora argued that the court could not be impartial because of several events in the case: Magistrate Judge Judith McCarthy’s ruling that Aramark Correctional Services’ chief executive did not need to be produced for a deposition; the defendants’ deposition of Tutora; the scheduling of status conferences over approximately three years while Tutora was in school; and the court’s use of memo endorsements. The opinion states that this was Tutora’s second recusal application based on similar grounds. His earlier application had challenged the scheduling of telephone status conferences and the dismissal of one of his three civil suits based on his failure to follow the court’s filing orders.
Legal standard and analysis
The court applied the rule that judicial rulings almost never provide a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. Recusal is generally limited to situations in which the alleged partiality comes from an outside source rather than from the judge’s rulings or conduct in managing the case.
Judge Karas concluded that Tutora’s grievances were directed solely at the court’s judicial rulings and management of the case. The court therefore found Tutora’s bias and partiality allegations baseless.
Disposition
The court denied Tutora’s request for recusal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Tutora.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.