Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04620/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04620-6/pdf.json

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

---

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 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

VESNA BIVOLAREVIC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

U.S. CIA, 

 Defendant. 

Case No: C 09-4620 SBA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECUSAL 

On September 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the CIA (presumably 

meaning the Central Intelligence Agency) alleging that she has been subjected to “voice to 

skull technology (in different forms) since . . . January 2005. I learned it is a mind control 

weapon, and this was imposed to me (sic) without my knowledge.” Compl. at 1, Docket 1. On 

March 8, 2010, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and denied Plaintiff’s motion 

for reconsideration on March 15, 2010. 

On June 2 and June 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed an “Affidavit in [sic] Request for Judge 

Saundra Armstrong’s Disqualification to Proceed Therein.” (Docket 69, 72.) The Court 

liberally construes these largely identical affidavits as a motion for recusal. Among other 

things, Plaintiff complains that the Court’s bias is shown by its rescheduling of the case 

management conference to a different date and by ruling on Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

without holding oral argument. 

Title 28, United States Code, section 455(a), states that “[a]ny justice, judge, or 

magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Recusal also is authorized under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 144, which provides that if “the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias 

Case 4:09-cv-04620-SBA Document 74 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no 

further . . . .” Under both recusal statutes, the salient question is whether a reasonable person 

with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably 

be questioned. Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion is moot. The Court previously granted 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Thus, there 

are no further proceedings contemplated in this action that would involve this Court. That 

notwithstanding, Plaintiff has failed to aver any legitimate grounds upon which a reasonable 

person with knowledge of the action would question the Court’s impartiality. With regard to 

scheduling the case management conference, Plaintiff should be aware that the Court has 

inherent discretion in managing its docket. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 

(1936). Likewise, the Court has the discretion to decide motions based on the papers filed. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). The remaining grounds for recusal (i.e., allegedly misspelling the 

plaintiff’s name on a clerk’s notice) are frivolous as well. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 21, 2010 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-04620-SBA Document 74 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

VESNA BIVOLAREVIC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

U.S. CIA et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-04620 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on June 22, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Vesna Bivolarevic 

P.O. Box 1056 

Redwood City, CA 94064 

Dated: June 22, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-04620-SBA Document 74 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 3