Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01888/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01888-3/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 TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS ON

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

As stated in the Court's earlier orders, this complaint is

based on an underlying civil rights lawsuit brought in state court

by Plaintiff against James Cahill, a former professor at the

University of California. 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 based on her

allegations that various state court judges, justices, and court

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 43 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 4
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

staff have acted to deprive her of her right to due process in

their handling of her state court lawsuit.

On October 12, 2005, the Court granted Defendants' motion to

dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) with leave to amend and

instructed Plaintiff that she had to properly serve the Second

Amended Complaint (SAC) on Defendants. 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

1, 2005. To date, Plaintiff has not filed proof of service of the

SAC and Defendants have not filed an answer. 

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

within twenty days of the order, proof that she had properly served

Defendants, or that she had asked them to waive service. In

response to the order, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion

for Revocation of Order; for Re-Assignment of Case," which the

Court interpreted as a motion for leave to file a motion for

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

Request for Recusal and the Court's Order for Plaintiff to File

Proof of Service.

On October 25, 2006, the Court denied the motion and again

ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service within twenty days of

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 43 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 4
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

the order and warned that it would dismiss her case for failure to

prosecute if she did not. On November 3, 2006, Plaintiff purported

to file an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit of this

Court's order. 

On November 17, 2006, Defendants filed in this Court a motion

to dismiss the action, for failure to state a claim and because

Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's order. In response,

Plaintiff filed the present motion. 

Plaintiff moves for an emergency stay of the Court's October

25, 2006 order denying her motion for reconsideration of the

Court's denial of her request for recusal. She argues that the

issue of recusal must be decided before this Court can address

Defendants' motion to dismiss. Further, Plaintiff alleges that she

did not receive the motion to dismiss until November 21, 2006, and

therefore that it is improperly scheduled to be heard on December

22, 2006. 

As the Court has stated in its previous orders on the matter,

it was permitted to, and did, rule on the sufficiency of

Plaintiff's allegations of bias and prejudice and found them

insufficient. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to

stay these proceedings pending appeal (Docket No. 40). The Court

will consider Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court notes that

on October 25, 2006, it warned Plaintiff that her case would be

dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute if she did not

file proof of service on Defendants within twenty days and that

Plaintiff has not done so. However, out of an abundance of

caution, it allows Plaintiff an additional opportunity to oppose

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 43 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Defendants' motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss shall

be filed by December 22, 2006. If Defendants wish to file a reply

to Plaintiff's opposition, they shall do so by December 29, 2006. 

The matter will be decided on the papers. The December 22, 2006

hearing is VACATED. 

Additionally, the Court again instructs Plaintiff to 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 and 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

by December 22, 2006, the SAC will be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/14/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 43 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 4