Nasio v. FBS Markets Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SIMON AMUNGA NASIO CIVIL ACTION
v. NO: 25-1936
FBS MARKETS INC. SECTION: C (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the court are Plaintiff Simon Amunga Nasio’s Motions for Recusal or,
in the Alternative, for Relief from Referral of Magistrate Judge Janis Van Meerveld
filed on December 20, 2025 (Rec. Docs. 50 and 51). For the following reasons, the
motions are DENIED.
Plaintiff Nasio filed this lawsuit on September 12, 2025 against FBS Markets
Inc. Plaintiff alleges that he is an individual investor who transacted with Defendant
through its trading platforms. He alleges Defendant fraudulently uses “U.S.
securities and related financial instruments to conduct manipulative trading
operations in violations of federal securities laws, the Commodity Exchange Act,
and related statutes.” Rec. Doc. 9, page 2.
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Rec. Doc. 10.
The court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but ordered summons be
withheld until further order of the court. Rec. Doc. 20. The court explained that it
was permitting Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, but summons would not issue
until the court reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint to determine if it satisfies the
requirements of the federal in forma pauperis statute. Rec. Doc. 20, page 2. There is
no absolute right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters. Rather, it is privilege
extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the actions are not frivolous or
malicious. Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969). 28 U.S.C. §
Case 2:25-cv-01936-WJC Document 60 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1915(e)(2)(B) allows the court to dismiss an in forma pauperis proceeding at any
time if the court finds the action frivolous or malicious.
Questioning the merit of Plaintiff’s claims, the court ordered Plaintiff to show
cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failing to state a claim on which
relief may be granted and/or for improper venue and/or for lack of personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant. Rec. Doc. 20. Plaintiff did not respond to this
request. Rather, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order, which
again requested service without addressing the court’s concerns regarding venue,
jurisdiction, or the failure to state a claim. Rec. Doc. 30.
Plaintiff then moved for the recusal of Judge Van Meerveld, or alternatively
that his motions no longer be referred to her. Rec. Docs. 50 and 51. In these recusal
motions, Plaintiff again asked for a directive enforcing service. Plaintiff requests this
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1).
Two statutes primarily govern the recusal of judges: 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28
U.S.C. § 455. Both statutes are based on the notion that a fair trial before an unbiased
judge is a basic requirement of due process. Chitimacha Tribe of La. v. Harry L.
Laws Co. Inc., 690 F.2d 1157, 1165 (5th Cir. 1982). Section 144 requires that a party
seeking recusal file a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the
matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of
any adverse party. In contrast, recusal under Section 455 does not require an
affidavit. Section 455(a) broadly provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate
judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Section 455(b)(1) provides a Judge
shall also disqualify himself “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning
a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding[.]”
Case 2:25-cv-01936-WJC Document 60 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Despite the procedural differences, substantively, the sections are “quite
similar, if not identical.” United States v. York, 888 F.2d 1050, 1053 (5th Cir. 1989).
A recusal motion under both statutes is committed to the sound discretion of the
district court. Chitimacha Tribe of La., 690 F.2d at 1166.
Here, Plaintiff relies on Section 455. Plaintiff argues that “this motion is not
based on disagreement with any substantive ruling, but on the structural handling of
the case, which has converted a federal civil action into a prolonged dispute over
access to service and notice.” Rec. Doc. 50, page 2. Plaintiff argues service is not
discretionary and does not depend on judicial preference. In sum, Plaintiff disagrees
with the court’s rulings regarding service. Judicial rulings alone almost never
constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
540, 555 (1994). Judicial actions do not support recusal “unless they display a deep-
seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. The
court finds no such antagonism in this case, and Plaintiff provides no extrajudicial
grounds for recusal. In fact, Judge Van Meerveld appears to have been well within
her authority in requiring Plaintiff to provide legal and factual support for his claims.
Recusal is not proper.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motions for Recusal or, in the Alternative, for
Relief from Referral of Magistrate Judge Janis Van Meerveld (Rec. Docs. 50 and 51)
are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this _____ day of March 2026
__________________________________
WILLIAM J. CRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01936-WJC Document 60 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 3