Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00849/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00849-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Mr. Wallan has submitted a motion for an extension of time to allow his 1

supplemental declaration to be filed late. Good cause appearing therefor, that motion will be

granted.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER T. HARRELL, No. CIV S-06-0849-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

GUST KEPREOS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff brings this action for damages, invoking this court’s diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s response (Doc. 38) to the

court’s January 25, 2007, order to show cause (Doc. 36). In his response, plaintiff also seeks

disqualification of the undersigned. Also before the court is a supplemental motion to withdraw

filed by attorney James A. Wallan. Plaintiff’s document entitled “Memorandum and Request 1

for Review” (Doc. 41), which is construed as a motion for reconsideration of prior court orders,

will be presented to the district judge assigned to this case and addressed by separate order.

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 45 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

A status/scheduling conference was held in this matter on January 16, 2007, at

10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. Plaintiff Peter T. Harrell, who is proceeding pro se, failed to

appear. As a result, on January 25, 2007, the court directed plaintiff to show cause why this

action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The January 25, 2007, order also

directed plaintiff to show cause regarding this court’s diversity jurisdiction. Finally, as to the

withdrawal of attorney James A. Wallan as counsel for defendants in this case, the January 25,

2007, order noted defects in Mr. Wallan’s initial declaration submitted in support of withdrawal. 

The court directed Mr. Wallan to submit a supplemental declaration to cure the defects. 

As to the withdrawal of James A. Wallan as counsel for defendants, Mr. Wallan’s

April 27, 2006, declaration in support of his motion to withdraw did not satisfy all the

requirements of Eastern District of California Local Rule 83-182(d). Specifically, Mr. Wallan’s

declaration does not reflect the address of the defendants or that his motion was served on the

defendants. Mr. Wallan has cured these defects in the supplemental declaration filed on April 9,

2007. Therefore, the court affirms its prior grant of Mr. Wallan’s motion to withdraw. 

With respect to plaintiff’s non-appearance at the January 16, 2007, hearing,

plaintiff has responded to the court’s order to show cause. Plaintiff states that his failure to

appear was the result in inadvertence and lost documents. Good cause appearing therefor, the

order to show cause regarding plaintiff’s non-appearance will be discharged. 

As to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship,

plaintiff has also responded to the order to show cause. Based on the documents attached to

plaintiff’s response, the court is satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 

The order to show cause will, therefore, be discharged in its entirety. 

Next, the court addresses plaintiff’s motion for disqualification of the

undersigned. Plaintiff’s motion is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 144, which provides as follows:

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a

timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is

pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 45 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another

judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1922), is the seminal case interpreting § 144. See U.S. v.

Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (1976). As a preliminary matter, the Court in Berger held that the

judge against whom a disqualification motion is brought may pass on its legal sufficiency. See

Berger, 255 U.S. at 233. To be sufficient, the motion must state facts which, if true, fairly

support the allegation of bias or prejudice which stems from an extrajudicial source and which

may prevent a fair decision. See Azhocar, 581 F.2d at 740-41. Thus, the Supreme Court in

Berger also held that adverse rulings alone cannot constitute the necessary showing of bias or

prejudice. See Berger, 255 U.S. at 34. In plaintiff’s request for disqualification, he asserts

orders issued by the undersigned reflect a personal bias against him. The court’s rulings,

however, are insufficient to show bias. Plaintiff’s request for disqualification will, therefore, be

denied. 

Finally, the record demonstrates that all defendants have now been served. The

court will, therefore, establish a due date for defendants to respond to the amended complaint. 

The court will also set a further status/scheduling conference

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Mr. Wallan’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 43) to submit a

supplemental declaration is granted;

2. The court affirms the May 9, 2006, order granting Mr. Wallan’s motion to

withdraw;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Doc. 42 as a pending

motion;

4. The court’s January 25, 2007, order to show cause is discharged in its

entirety;

5. Plaintiff’s request of disqualification of the undersigned is denied;

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 45 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

6. Defendants, who have all now been served with process, shall file a

response to plaintiff’s amended complaint within 40 days of the date of this order;

7. Within10 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this

order on each defendant and shall file with the court a certificate reflecting such service;

8. A further status/scheduling conference is set for August 21, 2007, at 10:00

a.m. in Redding, California;

9. All parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without counsel;

and

10. The parties shall submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties,

no later than seven days before the status/scheduling conference, a status report addressing the

following matters:

a. Service of process;

b. Possible joinder of additional parties;

c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings;

d. Jurisdiction and venue;

e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;

f. The proposed discovery plan developed pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26(f); 

g. The potential for settlement and specific recommendations regarding

settlement procedures and timing, including whether a settlement conference should be

scheduled and if so when, and whether referral to the court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution

Program (see Local Rule 16-271) is appropriate in this case;

 h. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cutoff dates for

discovery and law and motion and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial;

I. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due

to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or proceedings;

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 45 Filed 05/25/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

j. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in

bankruptcy;

k. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to

this matter acting as settlement judge and waiving any disqualifications by virtue of his so

acting, or whether they prefer to have a Settlement Conference before another judge; and

 l. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition

of this matter.

DATED: May 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 45 Filed 05/25/07 Page 5 of 5