Miller v. Apple, Inc.

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : JOHN WILLIAMS MILLER, : : Plaintiff, : : -v- : 25 Civ. 1172 (JPC) (RFT) : APPLE, INC., : ORDER : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff’s motions for the undersigned’s recusal, Dkt. 85, and disqualification, Dkt. 102, are denied. Plaintiff has not set forth any facts that would cause a reasonable person to find that the undersigned’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or that raise a legitimate question of whether the undersigned has personal bias, prejudice, or an interest in the action, id. § 455(b). The Court notes that Plaintiff has now filed a “notice” claiming that the undersigned is named as a Defendant in this action. Dkt. 101. To be sure, Plaintiff cannot mandate recusal or disqualification by naming the presiding judge as a Defendant in his case. See Ezekwo v. OPMC (Office of Professional Misconduct) New York, No. 21 Civ. 1274 (LTS), 2021 WL 3146239, at *2- 3 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2021); Abdul-Hakim Bey v. Hylton, No. 12 Civ. 5875 (PAE), 2013 WL 6642034, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2013); see also Penn v. City of New York, No. 19 Civ. 2106 (JMF), 2019 WL 2085135, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2019) (“It is well settled that a party may not procure a judge’s recusal merely by suing the judge.”). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Docket Numbers 85 and 102. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2025 New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge