Cano v. SEIU. Local 32BJ
- Katharine Parker
- 1:19-cv-08810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cano v. SEIU Local 32BJ, Judge Parker denied Cano’s motion to recuse herself after explaining the law during a case-management conference.
The ruling affects Jesus Maria Cano Ruiz’s request to remove Judge Parker from the case and leaves the recusal request denied. It also rejects the asserted basis involving defense counsel’s alleged unauthorized practice of law and alleged criminal conduct.
What happened
In Cano v. SEIU Local 32BJ, pro se plaintiff Jesus Maria Cano Ruiz asked Judge Katharine H. Parker to step aside from the case. He based the request on comments she made during a telephone conference after he accused defense counsel of practicing law without authorization and committing a felony.
Cano argued that Judge Parker’s explanation of the law and instructions to report alleged criminal conduct to law enforcement made her an accomplice and showed bias. The court found no evidence that defense counsel was practicing without authorization or had committed crimes, and said the judge’s comments were impartial guidance during case management.
Judge Parker denied the motion. She concluded that Cano had not shown facts that would cause a reasonable observer to question her impartiality, and explained that the New York judicial-conduct rules he cited apply to state judges, not federal judges.
The detailed version
- Cano v. SEIU. Local 32BJ · No. 1:19-cv-08810
- Katharine Parker
- July 27, 2022
Background
Pro se plaintiff Jesus Maria Cano Ruiz asked Judge Katharine H. Parker to recuse herself, meaning to remove herself from the case because of an alleged lack of impartiality. The request followed a June 29, 2022 telephone case-management conference. Cano had accused defense counsel of unauthorized practice of law and of committing a felony. Defense counsel responded that she was authorized to practice in both New Jersey and New York. Judge Parker told Cano that an attorney may be authorized to practice in more than one state, that an allegation of criminal wrongdoing was not properly brought before the court, and that he should report such allegations to appropriate law-enforcement authorities.
Cano argued that Judge Parker had “supported” defense counsel and had therefore become an “accomplice” to the alleged unauthorized practice of law. The opinion also notes that Cano submitted an email apparently impersonating defense counsel in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain her New York certificate of good standing. The court stated that this exhibit did not show that defense counsel was unauthorized to practice law and that the record contained no evidence that she had practiced law without authorization or committed crimes.
Analysis
The court analyzed the request under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which requires a federal judge to disqualify herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It explained that judges are presumed impartial and that the person seeking recusal bears a substantial burden. Recusal is warranted when an objective, fully informed observer would have significant doubt that justice could be done without the judge’s removal.
The court found that Cano had not alleged facts suggesting partiality. It characterized Judge Parker’s comments as impartial, legally grounded guidance intended to keep the case moving productively, particularly because Cano was representing himself. The comments did not prevent Cano from taking any legally permissible action against defense counsel. The court also stated that Judge Parker had neither revealed nor harbored bias or favoritism toward either party.
The court separately rejected Cano’s reliance on 22 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. § 100.3 and the New York Code of Judicial Conduct. Those provisions apply to judges in New York’s state court system, not federal judges. The court identified the federal Code of Conduct for United States Judges as the relevant federal ethical framework and concluded that there was no credible basis for recusal under either federal or state standards.
Disposition
Judge Parker denied Cano’s motion for recusal. The opinion does not state that the underlying case was dismissed or otherwise resolved by this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.