Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08162/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CYRUS SANAI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALEX KOZINSKI, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:19-cv-08162-YGR 

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 8 

The Court has reviewed pro se plaintiff Cyrus Sanai’s ex parte application to order: (1) the 

Clerk of the Court to issue summons; and (2) for the Court “to fully disclose all of her 

relationships with the defendants; any Circuit Judge who had an office in Pasadena; Circuit Judge 

Ikuta and form Circuit Judge Reinhardt; any judge who served on the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit from 1998 to date; and any other information a litigant would be interested in 

knowing.” (See Dkt. No. 8.) 

With regards to Sanai’s first request, requesting an order that the Clerk of the Court issue 

summons in this case, the Court notes that this request appears to now be mooted. Sanai filed an 

initial proposed summons on December 18, 2020 (Dkt. No. 3.); with no response from the Clerk 

of the Court at that time, Sanai filed the instant application on December 24, 2020. (Dkt. No. 8.) 

The Clerk of the Court thereafter, on December 26, 2020, issued the summons. (Dkt. No. 10.) 

Sanai has since submitted an additional summon on March 4, 2020 (Dkt. No. 17) to which the 

Clerk of the Court responded by reissuing on that same day. (Dkt. No. 18.) Accordingly, in light 

of the foregoing, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the first request. 

With regard to Sanai’s second request, the Court is guided by the ethical rules bound to it, 

including by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and by the applicable statutes, 

including 28 U.S.C. section 455. Under 28 U.S.C. section 455(a), “[a]ny justice, judge, or 

magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify [herself] in any proceeding in which [her] 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Under section 455(b), a judge shall also disqualify 

herself where “[s]he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of 

Case 4:19-cv-08162-YGR Document 27 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” The Court perceives no reason for 

disqualification nor does the Court have any relevant information to share or to disclose pursuant 

to section 455.1 To the extent plaintiff requires more information, the request is DENIED. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 20, 2020 

 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 Sanai indicates that he is involved in other litigation pending before the Ninth Circuit on 

the issue of the extent of required disclosures. Id. at 9. The Court is aware of no authority 

requiring disclosures to prove a negative, that is, where no basis for disqualification exists. 

Case 4:19-cv-08162-YGR Document 27 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 2