Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03010/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03010-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LORENA L. MEYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAREN LITZENBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03010-WHO 

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

FROM ADR REFERRAL AND 

REQUEST FOR RECUSAL OF 

COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 25

Plaintiff Lorena L. Meyer, proceeding pro se, seeks two forms of relief: (i) relief from the 

Automatic ADR Referral under Local Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 3-3(c); and (ii) an 

order recusing or disqualifying the Deputy Attorney General who is representing the state 

defendants in this case. Dkt. Nos. 24, 25.

The bases for both of these requests is plaintiff’s experiences with this Deputy Attorney 

General in one of plaintiff’s prior cases in this Court. Plaintiff asserts that requiring her to interact 

with this particular Deputy Attorney General – either through the ADR program or otherwise –

would place plaintiff in a “very precarious position and a dilemma.” Id. at 2. 

With respect to the request for relief from the Automatic ADR Referral, because it appears 

that ADR proceedings at this juncture would not be productive, I GRANT that request. The 

parties are relieved from compliance with the ADR deadlines specified in Docket No. 4 or 

otherwise required under the Automatic Referral. If, as this case progresses, it appears that ADR 

proceedings would be productive, I will Order them to commence. 

With respect to plaintiff’s request that I order the recusal or disqualification of the Deputy 

Attorney General, that request is DENIED. I expect all parties and counsel appearing in this case 

to act with civility and courtesy to one another. If anyone involved in this case experiences a lack 

of civility or courtesy from counsel or a party as this case progresses, that should be brought to my 

Case 3:16-cv-03010-WHA Document 26 Filed 08/01/16 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 California

attention during a Case Management Conference. 

Plaintiff is reminded that her opposition briefs to defendants’ three motions to dismiss 

(Dkt. Nos. 15, 16, 20) are due shortly, and must be filed on or before August 5, 2016.

1

 Plaintiff 

may want to see the assistance of the Court’s Legal Help Center, which has offices in San 

Francisco and Oakland. Appointments can be scheduled by calling 415-782-8982 and more 

information is available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2016

______________________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge 

 

1

 I recognize that plaintiffs’ opposition briefs are due on August 1, August 3, and August 5, 2016. 

However, plaintiff may have until August 5, 2016 to file all three opposition briefs at the same 

time. Defendants’ replies may be filed on August 12, 2016. The hearing on defendants’ motions 

to dismiss stay set for September 7, 2016 at 2:00 pm. 

Case 3:16-cv-03010-WHA Document 26 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 2