1 Baldi also seeks to have Judges McAuliffe and DeClerico

and Magistrate Judge Muirhead recused because he has also named

them in his complaint. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John Baldi

v. Case No. 04-cv-466-01-PB

Opinion No. 2006 DNH 144C

John Broderick, Jr., et al.

O R D E R

John Baldi contends that I must recuse myself from this case

and vacate all of my prior orders because he has filed a criminal

complaint against me for “violation of federal statutory [law]

including both misdemeanors and felonies with the Boston office

of the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department in Washington D.C., the

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Hampshire, and the

United States Senate Judiciary Committee.”1 Baldi suggests that

in view of his complaint, my further involvement in the case 

presents “a conflict of interest, and an opportunity to further

harm the plaintiff with a continuation of [my] criminal acts.” 

Baldi does not explain the nature of his criminal complaint

Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 106 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 3
2 Baldi may also be basing his complaint on earlier

allegations of misconduct that he presented in a prior recusal

motion. See Document No. 5. 

3 Baldi has not based his motion on 28 U.S.C. § 144. Nor

has he filed the affidavit required by § 144. Accordingly, I

deem his recusal motion to be based on 28 U.S.C. § 455.

-2-

in the recusal motion, but he referenced the complaint in an

earlier filed objection to another motion and attached what

appears to be a letter of complaint to the objection. The

objection suggests that the complaint is based at least in part

on his claim that I have made unspecified rulings in the case

that make me a co-conspirator with counterclaim plaintiffs Ronald

and Gail Brown.2

28 U.S.C. § 455 requires a judge to recuse himself “in any

proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.”3 However, a judge ordinarily should continue to

preside over any case assigned to him in which there is no

objective basis for recusal. In re United States, 441 F.3d 44,

67 (1st Cir. 2006). Further, courts must be careful to resist

“strategic moves by a disgruntled party to remove a judge whose

rulings the party dislikes.” Id. Thus, the fact that a litigant

has filed a complaint against a judge arising from the judge’s

Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 106 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 3
4 I decline to hold a hearing on the motion because a

hearing is unnecessary and would be a waste of time. 

-3-

work in the case does not automatically require the judge to

recuse himself from that case. See In re Beverly Mann, 229 F.3d

657, 658-59 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Martin-Trigona, 759

F.2d 1017, 1020-21, 1025 (2d Cir. 1985).

I cannot determine from the present record what it is that

Baldi claims requires my recusal. If it is either the fact that

he has filed a complaint against me arising from my work on this

case, or his belief that I have made improper rulings, his

argument necessarily fails. If he contends that I have

improperly colluded with his adversaries or have otherwise acted

illegally, his claims are unsupported and are flat out wrong. In

short, no reasonable person could question my impartiality on the

basis of the record presented in this case. Accordingly, Baldi’s

Motion to Recuse (Document No. 103) is denied.4

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 18, 2006

cc: John Baldi, pro se

Charles Russell, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00466-PB Document 106 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 3