Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-09943
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation, Judge Halpern denied reconsideration and barred further filings in two closed dockets without court permission.
The order directly affects Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo and his ability to file documents in the two closed dockets, 17-CV-02810 and 19-CV-09943. It also directs the Clerk of Court to reject filings made without the court’s permission.
What happened
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request to disqualify Judge Philip M. Halpern. The case had already been closed for more than two years.
The court said the reconsideration motion repeated the same arguments and identified no reasonable basis for changing the earlier decision. It also noted that Kamdem-Ouaffo had filed dozens of frivolous and abusive documents in the two closed cases despite an earlier warning.
Judge Halpern denied the reconsideration motion and prohibited Kamdem-Ouaffo from making any further entries on either closed docket without the court’s permission. The clerk was directed to reject filings made without that permission.
The detailed version
- Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation · No. 7:19-cv-09943
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 13, 2023
Background
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo moved under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) to disqualify Judge Halpern. The court had denied that motion on April 5, 2023, finding that Kamdem-Ouaffo had stated no conceivable factual or legal basis and had not met his burden of proof. Kamdem-Ouaffo then moved for reconsideration on April 10, 2023. The order states that he filed the same motion in another closed matter assigned to the court and that this order resolves both motions.
The court explained that reconsideration is appropriate when a party identifies controlling decisions or information the court overlooked that could reasonably change the result. It found that Kamdem-Ouaffo’s motion merely repeated the arguments supporting his original disqualification motion and provided no reasonable basis for reconsideration.
Additional filing restriction
The court also relied on its earlier warning that future filings involving similar claims, facts, issues, and parties would not be tolerated and that Kamdem-Ouaffo might be required to obtain permission before filing them. The court stated that, despite that warning, he had filed dozens of frivolous and abusive documents on both closed dockets.
Ruling
Judge Halpern denied the motion for reconsideration. He also prohibited Kamdem-Ouaffo from making any further entries on either closed docket without first obtaining the court’s permission. If Kamdem-Ouaffo filed additional documents in either closed matter without permission, the clerk was directed to reject them. The clerk was further directed to terminate the motion sequence at Doc. 318 in 17-CV-02810, terminate the motion sequence at Doc. 100 in 19-CV-09943, and reject future submissions filed without permission.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.