Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation
- Philip Halpern
- 7:17-cv-02810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem, Judge Halpern denied Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo’s motion to disqualify him.
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo’s requests for Judge Halpern’s disqualification in two closed matters were denied, and both motions were terminated.
What happened
In Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem, Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo, who was representing himself, asked the court to disqualify the judge from the case. He also filed the same request in another closed case assigned to that court.
The court said Kamdem-Ouaffo had not identified any factual or legal basis that could cause an objective observer to question the judge’s impartiality. The court also noted that the case had been closed for more than two years and that no claims remained to be decided.
Judge Halpern denied the motion for the same reasons a previous recusal request had been denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate both pending motions.
The detailed version
- Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation · No. 7:17-cv-02810
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
The plaintiff, Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo, represented himself and filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), the federal statute governing judicial disqualification. He asked Judge Philip M. Halpern to recuse, or remove, himself from the proceeding. The opinion states that the case had been dismissed more than two years earlier and had been closed since March 23, 2021. It also states that Kamdem-Ouaffo filed the same motion in another closed matter assigned to the court, No. 19-CV-09943. The order resolves both motions.
Legal standard
Section 455(a) requires a judge to recuse from a proceeding when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that recusal is warranted when an objective, disinterested observer who knows the underlying facts would have significant doubt that justice would be done without recusal.
Ruling
The court found that Kamdem-Ouaffo had identified no conceivable factual or legal basis for recusal and had not met his burden of proof. The court noted that a previous recusal request had been denied and that disagreement with the court’s rulings and unsupported accusations of bias were insufficient. The court also stated that the case was closed and that no claims remained to be adjudicated. Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at Doc. 311 in No. 17-CV-02810 and the motion pending at Doc. 93 in No. 19-CV-09943.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.