Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01382/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01382-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 730
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Report &amp; Disclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVE W. LINK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PILE DRIVERS UNION LOCAL 34,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-01382 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification of United States District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel is

currently set for hearing on June 2, 2010. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this

matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing. Having

considered the papers submitted, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Gustave Link filed this pro se action against his union on April 2, 2010, alleging that

the union retaliated against him for criticizing union officials by terminating him from an apprenticeship

program and that the union lacks adequate procedures for handling member grievances. On April 26,

2010, plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify Judge Patel, the judge presiding over his case, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Judge Patel referred the motion to the Clerk of Court for reassignment

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, and the motion was assigned to the undersigned judge. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

28 U.S.C. § 144 provides that a judge may be disqualified on a party’s motion if the party

“makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has

Case 3:10-cv-01382-MHP Document 26 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 3
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

a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party.” A judge must

disqualify him or herself “in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be

questioned” or where he or she “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. §

455(a), (b)(1).

Plaintiff has set forth no legitimate grounds for disqualifying Judge Patel from presiding over

his case. Plaintiff first contends that Judge Patel is prejudiced against union members in general and

against him personally due to his pro se status. Plaintiff cites no evidence of bias or prejudice, however,

other than the fact that Judge Patel dismissed an earlier lawsuit plaintiff brought against the union for

discrimination and retaliation due to failure to exhaust. Judge Patel’s prior adverse ruling is not

evidence of any bias against union members in general or against plaintiff specifically, and does not

provide grounds for disqualification.

Plaintiff next asserts that Judge Patel must be disqualified based on her relationship and dealings

with Sandra Benson, defense counsel in this case. Plaintiff states that Judge Patel, while sitting as Chief

Judge of the Northern District of California, appointed Ms. Benson to serve on the Judges’ Advisory

Committee. See Link Decl. ¶ 5. Plaintiff further states that Judge Patel “may have held” an ex parte

meeting with Ms. Benson in September 2006 prior to dismissing plaintiff’s prior lawsuit. Id. ¶ 7.

Finally, plaintiff takes issue with Judge Patel’s granting of defendant’s administrative motion for leave

to file a motion to dismiss without permitting plaintiff time to file an opposition. Id. ¶ 8.

Plaintiff’s first two contentions are wholly unsupported. Judge Patel has stated in a sworn

declaration that she did not appoint Ms. Benson to the Judges’ Advisory Committee and does not know

Ms. Benson personally. Patel Decl. ¶ 2. Ms. Benson states in her declaration that she was appointed

to the committee by another judge, not Judge Patel. Benson Decl. ¶ 4. Even assuming that such an

appointment would constitute grounds for disqualification, plaintiff’s allegation that it occurred finds

no factual support. Similarly, both Judge Patel and Ms. Benson have averred that no ex parte meeting

ever took place in connection with plaintiff’s prior lawsuit or any other case. Patel Decl. ¶ 3; Benson

Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff’s speculative assertion that such a meeting “may have” taken place is insufficient

to overcome these sworn declarations. Finally, Judge Patel’s granting of defendant’s motion for leave

to file a motion to dismiss does not constitute grounds for disqualification. Judge Patel’s ruling simply

Case 3:10-cv-01382-MHP Document 26 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 3
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

permitted defendant to enter a motion on the docket, and plaintiff has already made use of his

opportunity to oppose the motion on its merits.

Defendant has submitted evidence of a prior attempt by plaintiff to disqualify a hearing officer

on similarly meritless grounds. See Benson Decl. Ex. 1 (transcript of May 17, 2007 administrative

hearing at which plaintiff sought to disqualify hearing officer, and refused to participate in the hearing

once the motion was denied). The Court must advise plaintiff that he may not seek disqualification of

a judge or an administrative officer simply because that judge or officer has previously ruled against

plaintiff or against union members, or because the judge or officer has some tenuous connection to

another party in the proceedings. Plaintiff may only obtain disqualification upon an adequate showing

of actual bias, prejudice, or partiality. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455(a)-(b)(1). As plaintiff has not made

an adequate showing in this case, the motion to disqualify Judge Patel must be DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, the motion for disqualification is hereby

DENIED. (Docket No. 14).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01382-MHP Document 26 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 3