Wilson v. United States of America et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
ROBERT WILSON,
Plaintiff,
-against-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-5132(EK)(ST)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Wilson filed this action on September
10, 2025, alleging violations of various whistleblower laws.
Compl., ECF No. 1. 	Proceeding pro se, plaintiff moves to
proceed in forma pauperis. 	ECF No. 2. 	For the reasons set
forth below, that motion is denied without prejudice.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914, the filing fee to commence a
civil action is $350, with an additional administrative fee of
$55, for a total of $405. 	Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may
waive the filing fee upon finding a plaintiff indigent.
Plaintiff indicates that he receives pension and disability
income but he does not indicate the amount he receives each
month from these sources. 	ECF No. 2, at 1. 	Based on the lack
of information, the Court is unable to find that he is entitled
to proceed in forma pauperis.
Case 2:25-cv-05132-EK-ST Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff has also moved to disqualify the undersigned
and the assigned magistrate judge, arguing, without identifying
any facts, that “the actions of the Judges in this matter have
departed from . . . constitutional and ethical standards.” 	ECF
No. 3, at 2. 	“A federal judge must recuse herself in any
proceeding where her ‘impartiality might reasonably be
questioned’” or “where the judge ‘has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party.’” United States v. Morrison, 153
F.3d 34, 48 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1)).
The need for recusal arises when “an objective, disinterested
observer fully informed of the underlying facts [would]
entertain significant doubt that justice would be done absent
recusal.” 	United States v. Amico, 486 F.3d 764, 775 (2d Cir.
2007). 	Here, plaintiff has not identified a valid basis for
disqualification. 	See Watkins v. Smith, 561 F. App’x 46, 47 (2d
Cir. 2014) (“[T]he fact that [parties] were unhappy with the
district court’s legal rulings and other case management
decisions is not a basis for recusal . . . .”).
Plaintiff has also filed several motions for a default
judgment. 	ECF Nos. 8, 10, 13. 	Those motions are denied, as
plaintiff has not yet obtained a certificate of default. 	E.g.,
New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2005)
Should plaintiff wish to proceed with this action, he
must either (1) pay the requisite filing fee to the Clerk of
Case 2:25-cv-05132-EK-ST Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Court, or (2) submit a valid long-form in forma pauperis
application. 	If plaintiff fails to do either within fourteen
days, this action will be dismissed. 	The Court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denies in
forma pauperis status for the purpose of an appeal. 	Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). 	The Clerk of Court
is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to
plaintiff and to note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 4, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 2:25-cv-05132-EK-ST Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>