Simon v. Federal Prison Industries Inc.

Background

Charles Simon, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action on June 16, 2023, against Federal Prison Industries Inc. and Steve Schwalb, identified in the opinion as the company’s Chief Operating Officer. After the court scheduled an initial pretrial conference, Simon filed motions for a preliminary injunction, summary judgment, enforcement of what he characterized as an $85 million judgment, relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) from the scheduling order, and recusal of the judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The defendants moved for a 30-day extension to respond to the complaint and to adjourn the initial pretrial conference.

Rulings on Simon’s Motions

The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction because Simon had not shown a likelihood of success or a risk of irreparable harm.

The court denied the motion for summary judgment because Simon did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or show that there was no genuine dispute about any material fact entitling him to judgment.

The court denied the motion to execute judgment because Simon had not shown that a judgment existed that he was entitled to enforce.

The court denied the Rule 60(b)(4) motion as frivolous. Rule 60(b)(4) allows relief from a judgment or order that is legally void; the opinion applied that provision to Simon’s challenge to the order setting the initial conference.

The court also denied the recusal motion. Section 455 requires a judge to step aside when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The court explained that judicial rulings alone almost never establish a valid basis for recusal and concluded that the motion was frivolous. It noted that Rule 16 permits a court to issue a scheduling order after consulting with the parties at a scheduling conference.

Defendants’ Motion and Case Management

The court granted the defendants’ motion for an extension for good cause. The defendants were required to respond to the complaint on or before September 25, 2023. The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference to October 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 14. The court also said Simon could consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Clinic for Pro Se Litigants, which the opinion described as a free legal clinic operated by a private organization.