Zappin v. Schorr
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-02034
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zappin v. Schorr, Judge Ramos denied Zappin’s recusal motion and dismissed three letter motions as moot.
Anthony Zappin’s request for Judge Ramos’s recusal and the three letter motions at Documents 30, 45, and 49 were affected; the opinion does not state that it resolved the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
Anthony Zappin, a disbarred attorney representing himself, sued David Evan Schorr and New York State officials in Zappin v. Schorr. The opinion addresses Zappin’s request that Judge Edgardo Ramos step aside and three additional letter motions.
Zappin based his request for recusal on the court’s earlier rulings and matters outside the proceedings. The court said he presented no facts suggesting that its impartiality could reasonably be questioned. It also explained that judicial rulings alone almost never establish bias.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the recusal motion. He also dismissed the letter motions identified as Documents 30, 45, and 49 as moot, and directed the Clerk to terminate all four motions.
The detailed version
- Zappin v. Schorr · No. 1:22-cv-02034
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 8, 2023
Background
Anthony Zappin, a disbarred attorney proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against David Evan Schorr, Matthew F. Cooper, and Kevin M. Doyle. The opinion describes the defendants as including New York State officials and David E. Schorr, an attorney who previously represented Zappin during portions of his divorce proceedings. The case was one of at least sixteen suits Zappin had filed in state and federal court arising from his divorce, disbarment, and a later criminal prosecution.
Recusal Motion
Zappin moved to disqualify, or recuse, Judge Ramos under 28 U.S.C. § 455. The court relied on the reasons it had given in a prior related proceeding when denying Zappin’s earlier recusal motion. In this case, Zappin relied exclusively on the court’s prior judicial rulings and matters outside the context of these proceedings. The court concluded that he had not presented facts suggesting that the court’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
The court also cited the rule that judicial rulings alone almost never provide a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. It explained that a judge has an obligation not to recuse when recusal is not called for.
Disposition
The court denied Zappin’s recusal motion, Document 13. It also dismissed the letter motions at Documents 30, 45, and 49 as moot. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Documents 13, 30, 45, and 49. The opinion does not resolve the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.