Azubuko v. Zobel ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-5-2006
Azubuko v. Zobel
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5328
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Azubuko v. Zobel" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1149.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1149
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5328
_______________________________
CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO,
Appellant
vs.
RYA W. ZOBEL, JUDGE, In Official and Individual Capacity; DOCIA L. DALBY,
MAGISTRATE JUDGE, In Official and Individual Capacity; THE BOSTON’S PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; LEO T. SOROKIN; THE CHIEF-IN-CHIEF, UNITED STATES
MARSHALLS, In Official and Individual Capacity
___________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-03888)
District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano
________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 4, 2006
Before: FISHER, ALDISERT AND WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed May 5, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
In August 2005, Chukwuma Azubuko filed a pro se complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the following defendants: Rya
1
Zobel, Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Leo
Sorokin, Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts; Docia Dalby, Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana; the Boston Public School System; and the United States
Marshall for the District of Massachusetts. By order entered August 17, 2005, the
District Court granted Azubuko’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In conjunction with the dismissal, the
District Court ordered Azubuko to show cause in writing why he should not be enjoined
pursuant to the All Writs Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651, from filing any further actions in the
District Court for the District of New Jersey without prior approval.
Azubuko did not respond to the show cause order. Instead, on September 1,
2005, Azubuko filed a motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s August 17 order,
which the District Court denied on September 13, 2005. In the meantime, by order
entered September 7, 2005, the District Court entered the injunction, finding that
Azubuko had failed to show cause why the injunction should not be imposed. Azubuko
then filed a motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s September 7 order, arguing
that the injunction was “treason[ous]” and “Third World-like.” Azubuko’s second motion
for reconsideration was denied by order entered September 23, 2005. On November 15,
2005, Azubuko filed a motion to recuse District Court Judge Pisano pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 455(a), asserting that Judge Pisano’s September 7 order was “inhuman, preposterous,
2
and Saddam Husseinistic.” The District Court denied Azubuko’s recusal motion by order
entered November 18, 2005. On December 7, 2005, Azubuko filed the underlying notice
of appeal, indicating his intention to appeal only the November 18, 2005 order.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the
District Court’s denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion. Securacomm
Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom, Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2000). Under the
circumstances presented here, we have little difficulty concluding that the District Court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Azubuko’s recusal motion.
Under § 455, a judge must recuse where his impartiality “might reasonably
be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Azubuko points to the District Court’s September 7,
2005, order to support his claim that Judge Pisano’s personal feelings clouded his
professional judgment. However, “[w]e have repeatedly stated that a party’s displeasure
with legal rulings does not form an adequate basis for recusal.” Securacomm, 224 F.3d at
278; see also Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat’l Corp., 899 F.2d 1350, 1356 (3d Cir. 1990)
(“Disagreement with a judge’s determinations and rulings cannot be equated with the
showing required to so reflect on impartiality as to require recusal.”). Moreover, we find
nothing in the record to suggest “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make
fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Nor do we
perceive any facts from which a reasonable person would conclude that the impartiality of
Judge Pisano might reasonably be questioned. See Edelstein v. Wilentz, 812 F.2d 128,
3
131 (3d Cir. 1987).
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s November 18,
2005, order denying Azubuko’s motion for recusal.
4