Cano v. SEIU. Local 32BJ
- Katharine Parker
- 1:19-cv-08810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Cano v. SEIU Local 32BJ: Judge Parker denied Cano’s recusal request, finding his allegations did not show reasonable grounds to question her impartiality.
Plaintiff Jesus Maria Cano Ruiz’s request to remove Judge Katharine H. Parker from the case was denied; the opinion also addressed his discovery-related concerns.
What happened
In Jesus Maria Cano Ruiz v. SEIU Local 32BJ, et al., Cano asked the court to remove Judge Katharine H. Parker from the case. He argued that her handling of his request to address alleged discovery violations showed bias in the defendants’ favor.
The court explained that a judge must step aside when impartiality could reasonably be questioned, but judges are presumed impartial and the person seeking recusal must provide substantial support. The court found that delays in responding to Cano’s request and his accusations of cooperation with the defendants did not show bias. It also noted that discovery issues were scheduled for discussion at a later conference.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Cano’s request for recusal. The court also stated that Cano’s concern about the statute of limitations was unfounded because the time for filing a claim is based on when the claim arose, not on how long discovery takes.
The detailed version
- Cano v. SEIU. Local 32BJ · No. 1:19-cv-08810
- Katharine Parker
- Sept. 13, 2022
Background
The court considered Plaintiff Jesus Maria Cano Ruiz’s second request for Judge Katharine H. Parker to recuse herself, meaning to step aside from the case. Cano argued that the judge had shown bias toward the defendants by not granting his request to hold defense counsel in contempt for allegedly failing to produce documents.
Cano had moved on August 24, 2022, to hold defense counsel in contempt. The court denied that motion because it was unclear which court order Cano believed the defendants had violated. The court stated that, if Cano believed the defendants had failed to comply with an order after August 31, 2022, he could request a conference to discuss the dispute. After Cano requested a conference, the defendants filed a response and their own conference request. Cano then filed the recusal request. The court set a deadline for letters about any remaining discovery and stated that the disputes would be addressed at a previously scheduled case-management conference.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must recuse herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that judges are presumed impartial and that the person seeking recusal bears a substantial burden of showing a basis for it. Judges also have a duty not to disqualify themselves unnecessarily.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Cano had not alleged facts suggesting a lack of impartiality. His claim that the judge’s response was not as quick as he wanted did not establish bias or show that the court was ignoring his concerns. The court stated that courts may take days, weeks, or months to respond to requests while reviewing the parties’ positions and considering the appropriate action.
The court also rejected Cano’s claim that it was conspiring with the defendants to prolong discovery, calling that claim unfounded. It stated that it had consistently tried to move discovery forward despite Cano’s missed deadlines and frequent motions. The court further rejected Cano’s concern that discovery delays would cause his claims to become untimely, explaining that timeliness is generally measured from when a claim arises and is not determined by the length of discovery after the claim has been filed.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Cano’s request for recusal. The court also reminded Cano that a legal clinic in the district was available to assist people representing themselves in civil cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.