Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation
- Philip Halpern
- 7:17-cv-02810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem, Judge Halpern denied reconsideration and barred further filings in two closed matters without permission.
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo, the self-represented plaintiff, is barred from making further entries on either closed docket without the court’s permission; the Clerk of Court must reject filings made without permission.
What happened
In Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation, Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo asked the court to reconsider its denial of his request to disqualify Judge Philip M. Halpern. The court said the reconsideration motion repeated earlier arguments and gave no reasonable basis to change the decision.
The court denied reconsideration. It also prohibited Kamdem-Ouaffo from filing anything further on either of the two closed case dockets unless he first obtained the court’s permission. If he files without permission, the Clerk must reject the filing.
Judge Halpern issued the order on April 13, 2023. The order terminated the pending motions in both cases and directed the Clerk to reject future submissions filed without permission.
The detailed version
- Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation · No. 7:17-cv-02810
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 13, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo, who was representing himself, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) to disqualify Judge Halpern more than two years after the cases had closed. The court denied that motion on April 5, 2023, finding that Plaintiff had stated no conceivable factual or legal basis for disqualification and had not met his burden of proof. Plaintiff then moved for reconsideration on April 10, 2023. The same motion was filed in the other closed matter assigned to the court, and this order resolves both motions.
Reconsideration ruling
The court explained that reconsideration is appropriate when a party identifies controlling decisions or information the court overlooked that could reasonably change its conclusion. The court found that Plaintiff’s motion merely repeated the arguments from his original disqualification motion and provided no reasonable basis for reconsideration. The court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.
Filing restriction
The court also addressed Plaintiff’s filings after the cases closed. It had previously warned that future filings involving similar claims, facts, issues, and parties would not be tolerated and that Plaintiff could be required to seek permission before filing them. The court stated that Plaintiff nevertheless had filed dozens of frivolous and abusive documents on the two closed dockets since that warning.
The court therefore prohibited Plaintiff from making any further entries on either closed docket without first obtaining the court’s permission. If Plaintiff files additional documents in either closed matter without seeking and obtaining permission, the Clerk of Court must reject those filings.
Disposition
The order directs the Clerk to terminate the motion pending at Doc. 318 in 17-CV-02810, terminate the motion pending at Doc. 100 in 19-CV-09943, and reject future submissions from Plaintiff that are filed without permission. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.