Baldi v. John T. Broderick, Jr., et al

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