Andrews v. Bianco
| Jeffrey Andrews |
| Joseph F. Bianco |
| 3:2022cv01335 |
| October 24, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER. The Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's Order that he show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed. As observed in the Order to Show Cause, Judge Bianco is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for claims arising from Judge Bianco's judicial actions. See Huminski v. Corsones, 36 F.3d 53, 75 (2d Cir. 2005); ECF No. 6. Plaintiff's claims arise from Judge Bianco's decision dismissing his appeal and therefore clearly fall within the scope of judicial immunity. Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 11/28/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER denying #7 Motion to Stay. Plaintiff seeks a stay of this action pending determination of his consolidated appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (22-564 and 22-1298). The decision whether to issue a stay is "firmly within a district court's discretion, and in balancing the relevant factors the basic goal is to avoid prejudice." In re Frontier Commcns Corp. Derivative Litig., No. 3:17-CV-1792 (VAB), 2018 WL 3553332, at *6 (D. Conn. July 23, 2018). An important factor the Court considers is whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). Another is whether the stay applicant will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay. See id. In support of his motion, Plaintiff only asserts that his pending appeals are "about Judicial Immunity for Judges." However, the mere pendency of those appeals is not an adequate basis on which to stay the present case against Judge Bianco. Indeed, the Court has already noted that judges generally have absolute immunity from suits for money damages for their judicial actions, making it unlikely that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of those appeals. See ECF No. 6. And it is not at all certain that the Circuit Court's determination of the appeals will have controlling or even advisory impact on this case. Finally, Plaintiff has not asserted any harm, let alone irreparable harm, to him should the stay not be granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff's #7 Motion to Stay is DENIED and he is directed to respond to the Court's 6 Order to Show cause no later than November 22, 2022. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 11/17/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER denying #8 Motion to Recuse Judge. Plaintiff moves for the undersigned to be removed from this case insofar as Plaintiff has named the undersigned as a defendant in an unrelated case. See Andrews v. Dooley, No. 3:22-cv-01185-VAB (D. Conn. filed Sept. 21, 2022). A judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. 455(a); see also Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(C)(1). In determining whether recusal is required, "the appropriate standard is objective reasonableness -- whether an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the underlying facts, would entertain significant doubt that justice would be done absent recusal." United States v. Carlton, 534 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). The undersigned is very mindful of her ethical obligations in this regard. However, the undersigned does not believe that she is obligated to recuse herself under these circumstances. See In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F. Supp. 1237, 1243 (D. Conn. 1983) ("It is a judge's duty to refuse to sit when he is disqualified but it is equally his duty to sit where there is no valid reason for recusal." (cleaned up)).A judge is not automatically disqualified from presiding over a case "merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue" the judge in an unrelated case. DiMartino v. Pulice, No. 3:16CV378(AWT), 2017 WL 958391, *2 (D. Conn. Mar. 10, 2017) (quotation omitted). "A complaint filed against a judge that is subject to prompt dismissal on judicial immunity grounds will not ordinarily give rise to a reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality in unrelated cases filed against others by the same litigant. Such a nonmeritorious complaint, standing alone, will not lead reasonable minds to conclude that the judge is biased against the litigant or that the judge's impartiality can reasonably be questioned, and thus will not require the judge to recuse." Disqualification Based on Harassing Claims Against Judge, Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Op. No. 103 (June 2009); see also Eliason v. Corp. of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, No. 1:20-CV-00024, 2020 WL 9255404, *3 (D. Utah May 11, 2020) ("[F]iling a complaint against a judge on the basis of an adverse ruling would not, by itself, cause a reasonable person to question the judges impartiality. To conclude otherwise would allow litigants to bypass the statutory recusal process altogether by simply filing a lawsuit against the presiding judge."); Smith v. Aldridge, No. 319CV05600RBLJRC, 2020 WL 2557335, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2020) ("[R]ecusal is not appropriate on the basis of the litigation that plaintiff claims to be bringing in state court against a number of judges in this district, including the undersigned."); Edokobi v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., No. PWG-19-248, 2019 WL 2250568, at *5 (D. Md. May 24, 2019) (deciding that recusal was not necessary because a separate suit filed by the plaintiff against the presiding judge related to the judge's "official duties as a judge" and would therefore be subject to prompt dismissal under the doctrine of judicial immunity); Perri v. Bloomberg, No. 06 CV 403 (CBA) (LB), 2006 WL 8439302, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2006) (denying motion to recuse after the plaintiff named the presiding judge as a defendant in an unrelated case because the plaintiff failed to raise any indication of bias or impartiality); Buttercase v. Frakes, No. 8:18CV131, 2019 WL 2231133, at *1 (D. Neb. May 23, 2019) (collecting cases).Plaintiff has a history of bringing suit against judicial officials who rule adversely to him. These cases have been, not surprisingly, dismissed as barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. See, e.g., Andrews v. Hall, No. 3:22-cv-00267-MPS (D. Conn. dismissed Mar. 28, 2022); Andrews v. Vatti, No. 3:22-cv-00322-MPS (D. Conn. dismissed Mar. 28, 2022); Andrews v. Shea, No. 3:22-cv-00950-KAD (D. Conn. dismissed Oct. 28, 2022). The case filed by Plaintiff against the undersigned is also premised upon an adverse ruling made by the undersigned in another of Plaintiff's cases. Accordingly, under these circumstances, no reasonable person would question the undersigned's impartiality with regard to presiding over this separate, unrelated action. Plaintiff's #8 Motion to Recuse is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 11/16/2022. (Bernard, Hannah)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Removal of Judge by Jeffrey Andrews. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Stay by Jeffrey Andrews. Responses due by 12/5/2022. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Complaint alleges that Judge Bianco violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right to due process. The Court first notes that "[i]t is well settled that judges generally have absolute immunity from suits for money damages for their judicial actions." Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009). Such immunity applies if the challenged action "is judicial in nature" and was "not taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction." Huminski v. Corsones, 36 F.3d 53, 75 (2d. Cir. 2005); see also Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (Immunity is overcome only where the judge's actions were not taken in the judge's judicial capacity or, even if judicial in nature, they were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.).Judge Bianco's decision denying Plaintiff's motion to reinstate his appeal at the Second Circuit (Docket No. 22-1308) was clearly "judicial in nature," and there is no allegation or basis to conclude that Judge Bianco lacked jurisdiction to enter the denial nor the initial dismissal of the appeal. Accordingly, it appears that this action, like the many that have preceded it, see, e.g., Andrews v. Shea, 22-cv-950 (KAD), Andrews v. Hall, 22-cv-267 (MPS), and Andrews v. Vatti, 22-cv-332 (MPS), should be dismissed. See Fitzgerald v. E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that "district courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee"). Accordingly, the Plaintiff is directed to show cause, via a notice filed to the docket no later than November 21, 2022, why the Court should not dismiss this case as frivolous because Judge Bianco is immune from suit. If no such notice is filed, the case will be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/31/2022.(Bernard, Hannah)
|
| Show Cause Response due by 11/21/2022. (Bernard, Hannah) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #4 Electronic Filing Order, #1 Complaint filed by Jeffrey Andrews, #3 Protective Order Signed by Clerk on 10/26/2022. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/24/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/26/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/23/2022 Discovery due by 4/25/2023 Dispositive Motions due by 5/30/2023 Signed by Clerk on 10/24/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Joseph F. Bianco, filed by Jeffrey Andrews.(Chartier, AnnMarie) |
| Filing fee received from Jeffrey Andrews: $ 402.00, receipt number TBD (Chartier, AnnMarie) |
| Judge Kari A. Dooley and Judge Thomas O. Farrish added. (Freberg, B) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Andrews v. Bianco | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jeffrey Andrews | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Joseph F. Bianco | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
