Hill v. NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene

Background

The court had previously dismissed Vivian Hill’s claims against Mental Hygiene Legal Services under the Eleventh Amendment and gave her 60 days to file an amended complaint against the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. It also denied her requests for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Before and after that order, Hill filed several requests. One filing sought an order to show cause and a restraining order based on new evidence. Another argued that the judge should be replaced under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63 because, according to Hill, a court clerk could not remove a judge from the case. Hill also asked the court to stay the proceedings while that issue was appealed. She later filed a notice of interlocutory appeal challenging the order to amend and the recusal issue. The opinion states that the appeal was pending.

Recusal Analysis

The court treated Hill’s filing concerning Rule 63 as a motion asking Judge Swain to recuse herself. Federal law requires recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that, ordinarily, alleged personal bias must arise from conduct outside the judicial proceedings. Judicial rulings almost never establish a valid basis for recusal; they are generally grounds for appeal instead.

The court found that Hill provided no facts suggesting that Judge Swain showed the deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. It determined that the earlier rulings were issued because Hill failed to state a claim against the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and because Mental Hygiene Legal Services was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, not because of bias or impropriety.

Rulings

The court denied Hill’s motion for recusal. It denied her motion to stay the proceedings as moot. The court also denied her motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal after she files an amended complaint. Finally, it denied her motion for a restraining order without prejudice to her seeking that relief when the court retains jurisdiction over the action.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. In plain English, the court ruled that Hill could not appeal this order without paying the filing costs under that provision.