The opinion of the court was delivered by: FORMAN
The plaintiff, Nicholas J. Curtis, appearing pro se, moved for the disqualification of the judge to whom this case was allocated in due course, and filed an affidavit in the above captioned action brought against the United States and other named defendants, which in its features essential to the present consideration is as follows:
'1. I have docketed Case No. 497-50 Civil, and I am about to file and serve a Complaint bringing in 8 parties defendant.
'2. Under date 6/7/50 the Clerk of the above entitled Court notified me that he has allocated my case to the Division of the Court at Trenton, N.J.
'3. My understanding is that District Court Judge Phillip Forman is hearing cases in this Court.
'4. I have had two other cases go before Judge Forman, Nos. 1, 5773 and Civil 10,181 and he killed them both thereby leaving me under the circumstances which appear on the records of the present case.
'5. In case No. 10,181 John A. Hartpence appeared for a motion to dismiss and in his oral argument in substance admitted the facts complained of to be true and as a matter of right demanded that Judge Forman dismiss my case. In that case I made reference with the matters and things which are now the subject of the present cases, two of them being incorporated, and attached slips issued by one of the present defendants showing the frauds which were right at the door steps of the above entitled Court against the Internal Revenue Laws and as a result against the Social Security Account of myself, No. 077-01-9759; which account has been defrauded out of four-five thousand dollars.
'6. Judge Phillip Forman of his own motion and without hearing any one in opposition made paragraph on the Question in his Opinion covering one of the worst subversive schemes to be found any where in the world thereby making opportunities to the employer defendant in the present case to carry on their frauds and schemes and keep on violating the Internal Revenue Laws of the United States and here it is where he landed.
'7. This is not a joke, the conspiracy has consummated 40 years of my life and has left me under unspeakable circumstances.
'8. I have labored for a way out of these and looked for the names of the present Judges of the above entitled Court and find that Thomas F. Meaney and Thomas M. Madden are the two judges who have not taken part in any of the former cases. I have seen Judge Meaney one time and I have never seen Judge Madden, but I feel that either one of the two or both of them will be in a position to afford an impartial hearing or impartial hearings.
'9. I have noticed the New Acts of Congress and I am proceeding under two or three of them helpful to jurisdiction of the Court and there is no reason whatever why such subversive case as this should be permitted to terrorize the country at large. For the given reasons I cannot trust my case to the pathos of Judge Forman and Whereof pray for an impartial Tribunal to afford a final hearing.'
The plaintiff has instituted many suits in this court. They are reviewed in detail in an opinion filed in an action instituted by him in this court under the title, Nicholas J. Curtis v. Utah Fuel Co., et al., C-10,181.
Apparently, the plaintiff in his affidavit and the motion made pursuant to it has reference to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144, which reads as follows:
'The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be ...