Joachin v. Morningside Rehabilitation Nursing Home
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-07652
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Joachin v. Morningside Rehabilitation Nursing Home, Judge Carter denied Joachin’s motion to recuse himself because she showed no objective basis to question his impartiality.
Nadine Joachin’s request for recusal was denied, and Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. remained assigned to the case. The clerk was directed to close the open motion.
What happened
In Joachin v. Morningside Rehabilitation Nursing Home, Nadine Joachin, representing herself, asked Judge Andrew L. Carter to step aside from the case. The court treated her filing called a “Third Amended Complaint” as a request for recusal, or removal of the judge from the case.
Joachin referred to alleged conflicts of interest, bias, harassment, retaliation, and the judge’s earlier rulings against her. This was her third request that Judge Carter be removed or recuse himself. The defendants opposed the request.
Judge Carter denied the motion. He ruled that Joachin had not shown facts indicating bias, incompetence, or a legitimate conflict of interest, and that earlier unfavorable rulings alone were not enough to require recusal. The clerk was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Joachin v. Morningside Rehabilitation Nursing Home · No. 1:23-cv-07652
- Andrew Carter
- May 15, 2024
Background
Nadine Joachin, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.’s recusal. Recusal means that a judge steps aside from a case because impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Joachin filed a document titled “Third Amended Complaint,” but the court construed it as a motion to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because it focused on allegations supporting the judge’s removal rather than claims against the defendants.
Joachin alleged that “rocketeering,” harassment, workplace bullying, retaliation, a conflict of interest, prejudice, and “inside job harassment” justified recusal. She also stated that she believed Judge Carter could not handle the case without bias and referred to his alleged “illegal activities.”
Procedural History
The court stated that this was Joachin’s third effort to disqualify or remove Judge Carter. On October 10, 2023, she requested that he be removed, and the court denied that motion the next day. On February 20, 2024, she filed a notice of appeal alleging a conflict of interest and again requesting Judge Carter’s removal. On February 22, 2024, the court granted her permission to file and supplement a written recusal motion. She filed the document construed as the recusal motion on February 24, 2024. The defendants filed opposition on March 15, 2024.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must recuse when an objective, reasonable person who knows the relevant facts could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The opinion stated that judges are presumed to be impartial and that the party seeking recusal bears a substantial burden to overcome that presumption. The court also noted that a judge is required not to recuse when recusal is not warranted. Because Joachin was representing herself, the court said it would interpret her filings liberally and consider the strongest arguments they reasonably suggested.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Joachin did not meet her substantial burden. It found no reason that an objective, reasonable person knowing all the facts would question Judge Carter’s impartiality. The court explained that unfavorable rulings, including the denial of motions, are not by themselves sufficient grounds for recusal. It also found that Joachin had not alleged facts showing bias or incompetence and had not demonstrated a legitimate conflict of interest.
Disposition
The court denied Joachin’s motion to recuse. The clerk was directed to close the open motion at ECF No. 39. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.