Sheindlin v. Brady

Background

Defendant James Brady filed a renewed motion asking Judge Lewis J. Liman to recuse, meaning to step aside because of alleged bias or a possible appearance of partiality. The court had already denied two earlier recusal motions. Plaintiff Gregory Sheindlin also had a pending motion to compel Brady to produce evidence supporting accusations Brady had made against the court.

Brady’s renewed motion repeated his disagreements with decisions by the Court of Appeals and Judge Liman, including the court’s April 7, 2022 opinion and order. Brady accused the court of participating in a scheme with appellate judges, lying, colluding, and showing bias. The opinion states that Brady also objected to cases being assigned to what he described as certain judges.

Legal Standard and Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must step aside when an objective, informed observer could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The court explained that recusal is not justified by remote, contingent, or speculative reasons, and that a judge should not recuse based only on a party’s claim that an appearance of impropriety exists.

The court held that rulings unfavorable to a party generally do not establish bias. It found that Brady’s arguments, at most, showed disagreement with the court’s rulings. The court also reviewed Brady’s remaining accusations and found them meritless, stating that nothing in the record showed deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.

Rulings

The court denied Defendant’s third motion for recusal. It also denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Nos. 165 and 177.