Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01888/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01888-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WANXIA LIAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD QUIDACHAY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-1888 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE MOTION

FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff has filed a document entitled "Motion for Revocation

of Order; for Re-Assignment of Case" (Docket No. 33). The Court

will treat this as a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of both the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's

Request for Recusal (Docket No. 30) and the Court's Order for

Plaintiff to File Proof of Service (Docket No. 32). Having

considered all of the papers filed by the Plaintiff, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff's motion.

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 35 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 2

BACKGROUND

This complaint is based on an underlying civil rights lawsuit

brought against James Cahill, a former professor at the University

of California. In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants Superior Court judges, the Honorable Ronald Quidachay

and the Honorable Paul Alvarado, engaged in a cover-up for Mr.

Cahill and intentionally sabotaged Plaintiff's case against him. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Superior Court clerk Maura Ramirez

fraudulently sought to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious

litigant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants California Court of

Appeal justices, the Honorable Laurence Kay, the Honorable Timothy

Reardon, the Honorable Patricia Sepulveda and the Honorable Maria

Rivera, conspired with Mr. Cahill to deprive Plaintiff of her due

process rights. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant California

Supreme Court Chief Justice the Honorable Ronald George has

deprived Plaintiff of her due process rights. Plaintiff seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages for her

constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for her State law

claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

On October 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document entitled

"Declaration to Disqualify Judge Wilken," requesting that the

undersigned recuse herself from the case. On November 15, 2005,

the Court denied the motion, holding that Plaintiff's allegations

of impartiality were insufficient as a matter of law. On November

27, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Supplemental

Declaration of Bias and Prejudice of Judge Wilken."

Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on November

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 35 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 3

1, 2005. To date, Defendants have not filed an answer. Plaintiff

did not file proof of service of the SAC. 

On September 11, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file

proof that she properly served Defendants, or that she asked them

to waive service, within twenty days of the order. In response to

the order, Plaintiff filed the present motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD

"No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without

first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion." Civil Local

Rule 7-9(a). A motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party shows:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented

to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in

the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of

the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material

facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order;

or (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to

the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

DISCUSSION

I. Order Denying Plaintiff's Request for Recusal

Plaintiff contends that she filed her "Supplement Declaration

of Bias and Prejudice of Judge Wilken" with this Court after denial

of her first request for recusal in order to clarify that the

recusal request was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 rather than 28

U.S.C. § 455, upon which the Court based its order. She argues

that the two statutes set forth different standards for

disqualification. Therefore, she argues, the Court failed to

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 35 Filed 10/25/06 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 4

consider the legal arguments she presented in the first request for

recusal. 

"The test for personal bias or prejudice in section 144 is

identical to that in section 455(b)(1) . . . [c]onsequently, a

motion properly brought pursuant to section 144 will raise a

question concerning recusal under section 455(b)(1) as well as

section 144.” United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir.

1980). Although the test for personal bias is the same in §§ 144

and 455(a) and (b)(1), the procedural requirements of the sections

are different. Id. A motion filed under § 144 should prompt the

judge to determine independently whether the circumstances call for

recusal under the self-enforcing provisions of § 455 (a) and

(b)(1), which rests within the sound discretion of the judge. Id.

at 868. Because the test for personal bias is the same under 

§§ 144 and 455, the Court properly applied the standard set forth

in § 455 when ruling on Plaintiff's request.

Furthermore, the Court properly followed the procedure set

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 144. When a party files a timely and

sufficient affidavit of bias or prejudice of the judge before whom

the party's case is pending, the judge shall proceed no further in

the case until the judge passes on the affidavit's legal

sufficiency. 28 U.S.C. § 144; Berger v. United States, 255 U.S.

22, 35-36 (1922). Only after the judge determines that the

affidavit of bias or prejudice is legally sufficient does it become

the duty of the judge to "proceed no further" in the case. United

States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In the November 15, 2006 order, the Court determined that

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 35 Filed 10/25/06 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 5

Plaintiff's statements in her declaration were not legally

sufficient to demonstrate bias. Plaintiff alleged that the

undersigned dismissed Plaintiff's action "without any justifiable

factual and legal grounds" and stated that this dismissal

demonstrates that the undersigned is prejudiced against Plaintiff. 

(November 15, 2005 Order Denying Plaintiff's Request for Recusal at

2.) However, adverse rulings are not sufficient as a matter of law

to demonstrate that a judge's impartiality could reasonably be

questioned. United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir.

1983). 

The Court was therefore not required to "proceed no further"

in the case. Rather, it was permissible for the Court to rule on

the request and deny it. Accordingly, Plaintiff has shown no basis

for reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's

Request for Recusal.

II. Order for Plaintiff to File Proof of Service 

Plaintiff argues that this Court must rescind its Order for

Plaintiff to File Proof of Service because it had no jurisdiction

to issue the order after Plaintiff filed her request under 28

U.S.C. § 144. However, as discussed above, the Court permissibly

ruled on the sufficiency of Plaintiff's allegations of bias and

prejudice and found them insufficient. Therefore, the Court

exercised jurisdiction over this case when it issued the order for

proof of service. Accordingly, Plaintiff has provided no basis for

reconsideration of that order. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. 

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 35 Filed 10/25/06 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28 6

Within twenty days of this order, Plaintiff must file proof that

she mailed copies of the SAC to the attorney of record for

Defendants the Honorable Ronald Quidachay, the Honorable Paul

Alvarado and Maura Ramirez. Additionally, within twenty days of

this order, Plaintiff must file proof that she properly served

Defendants the Honorable Laurence Kay, the Honorable Timothy

Reardon, the Honorable Patricia Sepulveda, the Honorable Maria

Rivera, and the Honorable Ronald George. If Plaintiff fails to

provide such proof, the SAC will be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. Furthermore, under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, if Plaintiff did not serve the SAC within 120 days

after filing it, she must show good cause for failing to do so. 

See F. R. Civ P. 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/25/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 35 Filed 10/25/06 Page 6 of 6