NDOROMO v. BARR, 486 F.Supp.3d 388

Pro se plaintiff Akube Ndoromo sued DOJ officials after forfeiture of funds and two vehicles tied to his 2007 federal convictions for health-care fraud, false statements, and money laundering; criminal judgment ordered $1,856,812.71 restitution and forfeiture.
The Government also obtained a civil forfeiture judgment in United States v. $455,273.72 (summary judgment for government in 2011) affirming proceeds nexus to criminal conduct.
Ndoromo previously sued raising substantially identical claims in Ndoromo v. Sessions (D.D.C. 18-cv-2339); that case was dismissed (July 2, 2019) and the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
This action (filed Nov. 18, 2019 in D.C. Superior and removed) again alleges: wrongful forfeiture, violations of the False Claims Act, and a claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1817; defendants moved to dismiss and plaintiff moved to recuse the judge.
The court denied recusal (no extrajudicial bias and prior rulings alone insufficient) and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, relying largely on claim/issue preclusion, the bar against collateral attacks on forfeiture, and the inapplicability/misuse of the cited statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recusal of judge	Judge must recuse because she previously dismissed Ndoromo's similar case and "cannot be a judge and a witness"	Prior rulings do not show extrajudicial bias; no factual basis that judge would be a witness	Denied — prior adverse rulings and judicial knowledge from official duties do not require recusal absent extrajudicial bias or deep‑seated antagonism
Challenge to forfeiture orders	Forfeitures of bank accounts, businesses, vehicles and funds were wrongful and must be undone	Claims are precluded by prior adjudications and criminal conviction; cannot collaterally attack in a new civil suit	Dismissed — claim and issue preclusion apply; collateral attack on in rem forfeiture barred; criminal conviction estops these arguments
False Claims Act claim	Government falsely took plaintiff's funds — FCA permits recovery	FCA prevents fraud on the Government; it does not provide a remedy for persons claiming the government defrauded them	Dismissed — FCA inapplicable and previously rejected in related appeals
12 U.S.C. § 1817 claim	Forfeiture of bank accounts violated §1817 notice/acquisition rules; seeks daily penalties	Claim is another collateral attack tied to forfeiture; no factual pleading showing §1817 elements; sovereign‑immunity/waiver issues	Dismissed — precluded, inadequately pleaded, and statute not shown to apply against the Government in these circumstances

Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in the United States, 758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (court need not accept legal conclusions or inferences not supported by alleged facts)
Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (district court must consider pro se plaintiff’s filings broadly, including responsive filings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must plead facts plausibly showing liability)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
S.E.C. v. Loving Spirit Found., Inc., 392 F.3d 486 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (recusal standard: objective test whether a reasonable, informed observer would question impartiality)
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (recusal jurisprudence and objective standard articulation)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings are ordinarily not a valid basis for bias recusal absent deep‑seated antagonism)
Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U.S. 558 (1951) (prior criminal conviction may collateral‑estop defendant in subsequent civil proceedings)
United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996) (civil forfeiture is not punishment for Double Jeopardy purposes)
Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Omega, S.A., 432 F.3d 437 (2d Cir. 2005) (knowledge gained by judge in judicial capacity is not a basis for disqualification)