Case Activity (60)

1. Order | Filed: July 30, 2025 | Entered: July 30, 2025 Victor v. Apple Inc. et al

   Civil Rights: Other | Massachusetts

   Order ~Util - Terminate Motions

   Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking this Court’s disqualification and recusal and reassignment of the case to another judge, as well as asking that all prior rulings in this matter be vacated. [ECF No. 25 ]. She has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, essentially seeking to enjoin further action of this Court. [ECF No. 26 ]. The arguments raised in Plaintiff’s recusal motion, [ECF No. 25 ], are not cognizable reasons for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 or § 144. Specifically, this Court has no personal bias or prejudice towards plaintiff, no personal knowledge or personal interest in the case, and knows of no reason why its impartiality might be reasonably questioned. As the Court has noted previously, Victor has provided no allegation that warrants recusal or reassignment beyond her disagreement with this Court’s rulings, which is insufficient for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). As such, Plaintiff’s requests for judicial recusal, disqualification, reassignment and vacateur are all DENIED. This case has been dismissed and closed. Plaintiff’s recourse lies with the Court of Appeals. For the same reasons, which amount to no likelihood of prevailing on the merits of her arguments, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, [ECF No. 26 ], is also DENIED. Here again, her recourse lies with the Court of Appeals.(CAM)

2. Order | Filed: July 30, 2025 | Entered: July 30, 2025 Victor v. The United States of America et al

   Civil Rights: Other | Massachusetts

   Order ~Util - Terminate Motions

   Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking this Court’s disqualification and recusal and reassignment of the case to another judge, as well as asking that all prior rulings in this matter be vacated. [ECF No. 26 ]. She has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, essentially seeking to enjoin further action of this Court. [ECF No. 27 ]. The arguments raised in Plaintiff’s recusal motion, [ECF No. 26 ], are not cognizable reasons for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 or § 144. Specifically, this Court has no personal bias or prejudice towards plaintiff, no personal knowledge or personal interest in the case, and knows of no reason why its impartiality might be reasonably questioned. As the Court has noted previously, Victor has provided no allegation that warrants recusal or reassignment beyond her disagreement with this Court’s rulings, which is insufficient for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). As such, Plaintiff’s requests for judicial recusal, disqualification, reassignment and vacateur are all DENIED. This case has been dismissed and closed. Plaintiff’s recourse lies with the Court of Appeals. For the same reasons, which amount to no likelihood of prevailing on the merits of her arguments, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, [ECF No. 27 ], is also DENIED. Here again, her recourse lies with the Court of Appeals.(CAM)

3. 58 additional result(s)