The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, District Judge:
Plaintiff, Audrey Carter, has filed a Civil Complaint on April 15, 2011, which has been assigned to the docket of the undersigned District Judge. Ms. Carter seeks leave to proceed without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and she also applies for appointment of pro bono counsel. A review of her application indicates she is without funds to pay the filing fee, so leave to proceed without prepayment of fees will be granted.
At this time, the Court must review the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Complaint must be dismissed.
Audrey Carter brings this action against a group of many hundred defendants, named and unnamed, consisting of:
ALL DISTRICT FEDERAL JUDGES USA PRESIDENT OBAMA GEORGE BUSH JUDGE FREDA WOLFSON JUDGE AMBRO JUDGE CHAGERES JUDGE GREENBERG DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW JERSEY STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff alleges that she filed approximately seventeen cases since 1999 in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey and in the United States Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. She alleges the judges would not read her papers and would rule without a hearing in court and would not advise her of her time for appeal. She alleges that she was discriminated against by the courts, thatthe U.S. laws are wrong, that she was wrongly denied pro bono counsel, and that these are crimes for which the judges should be prosecuted.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks to have all judges and prosecutors prosecuted for not giving her a fair hearing and equal justice, together with a demand of $998 million, plus interest, against those who presided over her cases, or who did not let her win on her appeals. Apparently, this relief is sought against all defendants including the President who has no known connection to her cases and all federal district judges who have never had contact with her on her cases, since she names all judges as defendants.
II. PROPRIETY OF ADJUDICATION
The Court considers sua sponte the threshold issue whether the undersigned should recuse from adjudicating this case which names "All District Federal Judges" as defendants. Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. The undersigned would be nominally included in that broad category, since the undersigned is a Federal District Judge. On the other hand, the undersigned is not named as an individual defendant, has never handled Ms. Carter's cases, and has no personal knowledge of the facts of her case.
The naming of "all federal judges" as defendants does not result in their disqualification. If disqualification were required by naming all federal judges, then no federal judge would be able to sit in the case. Under the "rule of necessity," according to the Supreme Court, "where all are disqualified, none are disqualified." United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 217 (1980); Pilla v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 542 F.2d 56, 59 (8th Cir. 1976).
In a case with allegations quite similar to this one, Ignacio v. Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2006), the plaintiff sought to disqualify the entire court of appeals from hearing his case, on the grounds that all Ninth Circuit judges had conspired to dismiss his previous suits. The court explained that under the "rule of necessity," no judge would be disqualified because to do so ...