S.C.S. § 455(a), a federal judge must recuse himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The Court must consider whether, "a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, [would] conclude that the trial judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned." United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811, 815 (2d Cir.1992). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court shall dismiss the action. To show a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a claim must be "so insubstantial, implausible, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy." IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1056 (2d Cir. 1993). The court held that "Parents' right to educational choice for their children is triggered by substantial denials of educational choice…not by state health and welfare concerns over who is responsible for checking children for contagious diseases." Kampfer v. Gokey, 955 F. Supp. 167, 171 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
Analysis:...
The school's refusal to have its doctor check the student for nits did not rise to the level of a denial of a fundamental constitutional right, which meant that the plaintiffs failed to state a justiciable federal claim.
Conclusion: The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for recusal. The Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the Court did not consider whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring this case or the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
References
28 U.S.C.S. § 455(a).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993).
Kampfer v. Gokey, 955 F. Supp. 167 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811 (2d Cir.1992).
