Opinion ID: 6350319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Recusal Claim

Text: Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martin’s motion for recusal. Martin’s motion alleged judicial bias on the sole basis that the same district judge had denied the majority of motions he made in a separate case before her. Since Martin offered no reason here for recusal outside of the court’s adverse rulings, the district court properly denied the motion. This Court has held that “[g]enerally, claims of judicial bias must be based on 2 The district court also properly determined that Martin cannot appear pro se on behalf of College Degree, despite being its sole member. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 138 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[B]ecause [the pro se plaintiff] is not an attorney, he cannot represent [an LLC], notwithstanding that he is [the LLC’s] sole member.”). 7 extrajudicial matters, and adverse rulings, without more, will rarely suffice to provide a reasonable basis for questioning a judge’s impartiality.” Chen v. Chen Qualified Settlement Fund, 552 F.3d 218, 227 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The record does not contain any allegation of extrajudicial bias, nor do the district court’s adverse rulings in a separate case provide a basis for recusal. Therefore, the district court’s denial was “within the range of permissible decisions.” Scott, 954 F.3d at 512 (internal quotation marks omitted).