than four years ago, contains in excess of 350 entries at present. Klayman's failure to properly cite to the record or to identify the rulings of which he now complains has significantly and needlessly increased the difficulty in determining which of the hundreds of rulings in this case are now at issue. Nonetheless, to the extent the Court has been able to determine which of its rulings are likely described by Klayman in his Affidavit, the Court has identified these decisions above. 3 . The Court is also cognizant that section 455 imposes a duty upon this Court to consider recusal sua sponte, and, for this reason as well, shall proceed to consider Klayman’s substantive allegations in support of his Motion to Disqualify. See United States v. Barrett, 111 F.3d 947, 955 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 4 . While Klayman's initial motion for
recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff recognizing every federal appellate court has a special obligation to consider its own jurisdiction even if it must do so sua sponte recognizing that section 455 requires judges to consider recusal sua sponte  holding that rule 60b bars sua sponte relief holding recusal not required