Daniel E. Hall a/k/a Sensa Verogna v. Twitter Inc.

2022 DNH 128

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 11, 2022
• Docket: 20-cv-536-SE
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel E. Hall a/k/a Sensa Verogna

v. Case No. 20-cv-536-SM Opinion No. 2022 DNH 128 Twitter Inc.

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff has filed a motion seeking my recusal

(doc. no. 91), based on rulings and orders that he finds

disappointing, and which he perceives as revealing an actual

bias, or at least the appearance of bias, against him and in

favor of both the defendant and defendant's counsel. See 28

U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. The motion is without merit and,

ordinarily, would be summarily denied. See Liteky v. United

States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). (Judicial rulings are almost never

a valid basis for seeking recusal.)

While the motion, as filed, is without merit, it will

nevertheless be granted, albeit on entirely unrelated grounds.

Before the Court of Appeals issued its mandate resolving

the interlocutory appeal, the law firm of Flood, Sheehan &

Tobin, PLLC, effectively merged its practice with that of Orr & Reno, the firm acting as counsel to the defendant in this case.

That new relationship matters because Flood, Sheehan & Tobin,

PLLC, prepared an estate plan and related legal documents for me

and my spouse several years ago. While no legal services have

been performed for some years now, still, an estate planning

relationship is generally understood to be an ongoing one, and,

the relevant client files have now moved from Flood, Sheehan &

Tobin to Orr & Reno. It is highly likely that my spouse and I

will be consulting with the same attorney in the future with

respect to planning updates, and that attorney is now a partner

at Orr & Reno.

While the "appearance of partiality" potentially arising

from these circumstances seems implausible and remote, still,

the Committee on Codes of Conduct has noted in an advisory

opinion that "judges should recuse . . . in cases in which one

of the parties is represented by a lawyer who is a member of a

firm that currently represents the judge in an unrelated

matter." Kelwin Inkwel, LLC, et al. v. PNC Merchant Services

Company, L.P., 2020 WL 13077198, *1, (E.D. New York, May 5,

2020) (citation omitted). In Kelwin Inkwell, Judge Komitee,

under nearly identical circumstances, concluded that the

Advisory Opinion's "broad directive seems squarely applicable,"

2 and he found recusal to be the "better course of action to avoid

even the appearance of partiality." Id.

Canon 3D of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

(and 28 U.S.C. § 455(e)) does allow for a waiver procedure under

these circumstances. Following judicial disclosure, on the

record, of the basis for the disqualification, and if the

parties and their lawyers have an opportunity to confer outside

the presence of the judge, and all agree in writing or on the

record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge

is then willing to participate, then the judge need not recuse.

The waiver process is generally administered by the Clerk of

Court, without the judge's involvement or knowledge with respect

to responses. Appropriate forms are used to determine the

parties' wishes, consistently with the Canon's requirement.

In this case, however, given the tone and tenor of

plaintiff's motion to recuse, it is not wildly speculative to

predict that initiating a waiver process would merely waste a

great deal of time and effort, which the court declines to do.

Other judges in this district are readily available to preside

over this litigation in a seamless and effective manner, so

there should be no disruption in its progress due to my recusal.

3 Conclusion

Accordingly, as did Judge Komitee, I conclude that recusal

is appropriate under these circumstances, based on the Advisory

Opinion issued by the Committee on Codes of Conduct. I also

conclude that initiating the waiver of disqualification process

would be inappropriate here. The Clerk shall arrange for this

case to be reassigned to another district judge.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

October 11, 2022

cc: Daniel E. Hall, pro se Jonathan Eck, Esq. Indraneel Sur, Esq.