After considering Plaintiff’s motion, noting that Plaintiff had not been authorized to proceed in the district court under § 1915, and perceiving that Plaintiff had access to ample resources based on the detailed pleadings Plaintiff already filed, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion on April 3. (Order, Dkt. No. 38)
8. In view of the record and proceedings thus far, and specifically considering the excessive length of the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint, this Court feels strongly that the Third Circuit acted in error when it failed to affirm this Court’s dismissal with prejudice.
The Court feels equally as strong that it is obligated to follow both the letter and spirit of the Opinion and Order of the Third Circuit. See Pittston Co. v. Sedgwick James of N.Y., Inc., 971 F.Supp. 915, 919 (D.N.J. 1997)
(“[I]t is important to acknowledge that this Court is bound by controlling decisions of the Third Circuit.”) 9. As a result, this Court concludes that it is faced with a conflicted situation where it cannot carry out its obligations fairly and dispassionately.
Because this conflict may lead to questions regarding impartiality, recusal from this case is appropriate.
Click here to read Entire RECUSAL ORDER