Nwoye v. Obama
22-1253-cv
2d Cir.Jan 25, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ikemefuna Stephen Nwoye sued Barack and Michelle Obama for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment arising from alleged consulting discussions and unpaid work.
- Nwoye alleged he entered an implied consultancy agreement after discussing the 2015 Global Entrepreneurship Summit and the Power Africa Initiative with an Obama contact at Sidley Austin LLP.
- He also claimed the Obamas were unjustly enriched by his participation in Sidley Austin’s Africa‑Asia Agricultural Enterprise Pro Bono Program.
- The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte without prior notice, concluding the Obamas likely had absolute immunity and that Nwoye failed to link Michelle Obama to the alleged wrongs.
- Nwoye moved on recusal grounds, arguing the district judge should be disqualified because she had been appointed by President Obama.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court should have given notice and an opportunity to be heard before sua sponte dismissal, but rejected the recusal claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of district judge | Judge should recuse because appointed by President Obama | Appointment alone does not create reasonable doubt of impartiality | Denied — no recusal required; appointment alone insufficient (Liteky/MacDraw) |
| Sua sponte dismissal without notice | Dismissal was improper because no advance notice or opportunity to respond was given | Court sua sponte dismissal was warranted by immunity/merits | Vacated & remanded — district court should have given notice and chance to be heard (Wachtler/Catzin) |
| Presidential absolute immunity | Impliedly argued Obamas immune from suit for counsel-related conduct | District court found Obamas likely absolutely immune | Circuit did not decide immunity on the merits; procedural error requires remand for notice/opportunity |
| Failure to state claim against Michelle Obama | Nwoye argued Michelle was liable for unjust enrichment/contract claims | District court said no link between Michelle and alleged conduct | Circuit did not resolve the merits; remanded so claims can be addressed after proper notice |
Key Cases Cited
- MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., Inc., 138 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1998) (appointment of a judge by a president does not alone require recusal)
- In re Exec. Off. of the President, 215 F.3d 25 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (judge's lifetime appointment and duty to be impartial dispel recusal concerns based on appointing president)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (adverse rulings generally do not prove judicial bias)
- Wachtler v. County of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1994) (sua sponte dismissal without notice generally inappropriate)
- Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2018) (courts should give parties an opportunity to be heard before dismissing sua sponte)
- Ethridge v. Bell, 49 F.4th 674 (2d Cir. 2022) (reaffirming notice requirement for sua sponte dismissals)
- Perez v. Ortiz, 849 F.2d 793 (2d Cir. 1988) (narrow exceptions for sua sponte dismissal of frivolous in forma pauperis complaints)
- Snider v. Melindez, 199 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1999) (sua sponte dismissals without notice permissible only when lack of jurisdiction or clear defect is unmistakable)