Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department

Background

Saul Sabino, proceeding without a lawyer, filed two declarations that functioned partly as a motion asking Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses to recuse herself, or step aside. He also objected under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 to Judge Moses’s March 15, 2023 order. That earlier order denied three of Sabino’s motions and granted one.

The earlier order denied as moot Sabino’s request to expand a subpoena for his medical records. It denied his request for appointed volunteer counsel because he had not shown that his claim was sufficiently meritorious to justify volunteer attorney time. It denied his request for a protective order and sanctions after finding no evidence of misconduct by defendants’ counsel. It granted Sabino’s request for more time to review and correct his deposition transcripts, excused a procedural lapse because he was representing himself, and directed that new transcript copies be sent to him after his transfer to the Elmira Correctional Facility.

Recusal request

Sabino argued that the adverse rulings reflected judicial bias. He alleged that Judge Moses delayed ruling on his subpoena request to help defendants, improperly characterized his sanctions motion, and improperly discussed his deposition testimony. He also argued that Judge Moses improperly decided a final case-dispositive motion without his consent when denying appointed counsel, and disputed whether a New York Legal Assistance Group clinic could assist incarcerated civil litigants.

Judge Moses explained that recusal statutes require a judge to step aside when impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Judicial rulings alone almost never establish a valid basis for recusal. The relevant question is whether an objective, fully informed observer would have significant doubt that justice would be done without recusal.

Judge Moses concluded that Sabino identified no valid basis for recusal. In her view, his arguments showed only that he disagreed with the March 15 order and believed his motions should have been granted. His speculation about improper motivation did not show that the rulings resulted from bias. She also rejected his characterization of the appointed-counsel and sanctions rulings as case-dispositive, explaining that both types of decisions are non-dispositive orders. The order noted that a party may object to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order by filing objections with the district judge within 14 days after service.

Extension request and disposition

Sabino separately requested an extension of time based on alleged conduct by officials at the Elmira Correctional Center, including alleged denial of access to nerve-damage medication and the law library. He did not identify the deadline or deadlines he wanted extended. The court noted two current deadlines: April 17, 2023, to correct his deposition transcripts, and April 28, 2023, to reply to defendants’ opposition to his motion to amend his complaint.

Judge Moses extended both deadlines to May 17, 2023. The conclusion of the order states that Sabino’s demand for recusal was DENIED and his motion for an extension was GRANTED.