Order | Filed: August 14, 2026
| Entered: August 14, 2026
Rajkarnikar v. Maplebear Inc.
Contract: Other | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Order on Motion to Transfer / Disqualify / Recuse Judge Order on Motion to Reopen Case Order on Motion to Vacate
ORDER denying 22 Motion to Amend, Motion to Recuse, Motion to Reopen Case, and Motion to Vacate.
Motion to Amend. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed on August 10, 2026, and she therefore cannot now move to amend her complaint. See In re Aquaculture Found. for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liab., 183 F.R.D. 64, 66 (D. Conn. 1998) (“[Y]ou cannot amend a complaint in an action that has already been dismissed.”).
Motion to Recuse. A federal judge has a duty in every case to determine whether recusal is warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. But because of the potential for "judge-shopping," the Second Circuit has explained that motions seeking recusal must be "scrutinized with care." In re Aguinda, 241 F.3d 194, 201 (2d Cir. 2001). Section 455(a) provides generally that a judge must recuse themselves in any proceeding where their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Section 455(b) lists specific circumstances in which disqualification is required. See In re Citigroup Sec. Litig., No. 20-CV-9132 (LAP), 2022 WL 2135496, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2022). Recusal decisions are committed to the discretion of the Court. United States v. Rechnitz, 75 F.4th 131, 142 (2d Cir. 2023). The question is "whether a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would conclude that the trial judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned." Id. at 142-43.
Here, the Court concludes that disqualification is not required because no reasonable party would question the Court's impartiality. That the undersigned has dismissed this matter does not lead the Court to conclude that a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, would determine that the undersigned’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Therefore, the Court denies the recusal motion.
Motions to Reopen and Vacate. Plaintiff does not address in any fashion the claims previously dismissed in this case. Rather, Plaintiff laments on a variety of topics wholly unrelated to the operative Amended Complaint. Therefore, even liberally construed, the motions do not implicate any basis upon which to reopen or vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Conclusion. Accordingly, all four motions at ECF No. 22—the Motion to Amend, Motion to Recuse, Motion to Reopen, and Motion to Vacate—are denied.
Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that further unmeritorious filings will likely result in an injunction prohibiting Plaintiff from filing documents in this case. See Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (explaining that district courts "may impose sanctions, including restrictions on future access to the judicial system when a litigant has a history of filing vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits." (internal quotations omitted)).
Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 8/14/2026. (SF)