Opinion
23 Civ. 7637 (NRB)
10-12-2023
RAHUL MANCHANDA AND MRS. SYLWIA EWELINA MANCHANDA, Plaintiffs, v. AUSA DANA WALSH, AUST GREGORY ZIPES, SEAN LANE, SDNY Bankruptcy Judge, LAW CLERK SARAH ROSENTHAL, LAW CLERK JACQUELINE TRAN, LAW CLERK CHRISTINE AZZARO, COURTROOM DEPUTY LIZA EBANKS, MICHAEL DRUCKMAN, BRETT E. LEWIS, LAW FIRM LEWIS & LIN LLC, DAVID D. LIN, AND DR. DOUGLAS SENDEROFF, Defendants.
ORDER
NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's letter, dated October 6, 2023, requesting that the Court recuse itself from this case. This case, like all new cases in this District, was randomly assigned to this Court. See Rule 4(b), Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges. Once a case is assigned, “there is no process by which a party can request ‘reassignment' based on a preference, a dislike of a particular judge, or a disappointment with a judge's rulings.” James v. State Univ. of New York, No. 22 Civ. 4856, 2023 WL 3006104, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2023). A party may request that a judge recuse herself in any proceeding in which the judge's “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). However, “there exists a strong presumption of a judge's impartiality which may only be overcome by adequate proof to the contrary.” Wiltshire v. Williams, No. 10 Civ. 6947, 2012 WL 899383, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2012). Plaintiff's suggestion that this Court should be disqualified based on a single case management order it issued is clearly insufficient to overcome the strong presumption of impartiality. See Watkins v. Smith, 561 Fed.Appx. 46, 47 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding that plaintiff's dissatisfaction with a district court's “case management decisions is not a basis for recusal”). Accordingly, plaintiff's request is denied.