Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04257/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04257-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MELANIE C. LATRONICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HERMESH LEE SANGHA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04257-YGR (JST)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISQUALIFY JUDGE

Re: ECF No. 55

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judges and Their Ordered Recusal,

ECF No. 55. In her Motion, Plaintiff seeks U.S. District Judge Gonzales Rogers’ disqualification

from this case. Id. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action against a number of private and public entity Defendants, 

including the City of Modesto, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, and the Contra Costa 

County Board of Supervisors. See ECF Nos. 1, 16. Plaintiff alleges constitutional deprivations 

based upon alleged criminal activity against her and “the girls,” in the form of torture, forced 

injections, spraying chemicals, and procedures involving “internal animation technology,” among 

other allegations. See ECF No. 16.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers dismissed Plaintiff’s initial complaint with leave to amend. See

ECF No. 9. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, ECF No. 16, but on February 4, 2015, Judge 

Gonzalez Rogers granted Defendant City of Modesto’s Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint, 

and dismissed the action against all Defendants, ECF No. 53. Following dismissal, Plaintiff filed 

her motion for disqualification, alleging that Judge Gonzalez Rogers is biased and prejudiced

against her. ECF No. 55.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers referred the motion for disqualification to another judge of this 

Case 4:14-cv-04257-YGR Document 62 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Court. ECF No. 59. On May 14, 2015, the Court’s Executive Committee randomly assigned the 

Motion to the undersigned pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-14. ECF No. 60. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 144 (“section 144”), “[w]henever a party to any proceeding in a district 

court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is 

pending has a personal bias or prejudice . . . against him . . . , such judge shall proceed no further 

therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” Any affidavit filed under 

this rule “shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists . . . .” 28 

U.S.C. § 144. 

In evaluating alleged bias or prejudice under section 144, the court must consider the 

source of the facts asserted in the movant’s affidavit, the effect of those facts on a decision on the 

merits, and the substantiality of the support given by the facts to the allegation of bias. United 

States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 739-40 (9th Cir. 1978). In order to prevent abusive use of 

section 144, the movant must provide details of the “definite time and place and character” of the 

alleged bias or prejudice. Grimes v. United States, 396 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1968) (citing 

Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 34 (1921)).

The standard for recusal or disqualification under section 144 is “whether a reasonable 

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

reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations 

omitted). The bias and prejudice alleged under section 144 generally must stem from a source 

outside the judicial proceeding at hand. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 544-46 (1994)

(citations omitted); Studley, 783 F.2d at 939 (“The alleged prejudice must result from an 

extrajudicial source; a judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.”). 

A party seeking disqualification bears a “substantial burden” of showing bias; absent such 

a showing, courts presume impartiality. See United States v. Zagari, 419 F. Supp. 494, 501, 506 

n.30 (N.D. Cal. 1976) (citations omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

The primary basis for Plaintiff’s motion appears to be that Plaintiff disagrees with Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-04257-YGR Document 62 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Northern District of California

Gonzalez Rogers’ prior rulings.1 But the law is clear that, in general, “a judge’s prior adverse 

ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” Studley, 783 F.2d at 939; see also Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 

583; Liteky, 510 U.S. at 556. In some cases, a judicial ruling can constitute evidence of bias, but 

only if the ruling displays an “antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 

510 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff has not shown any such antagonism here. 

Judge Gonzalez Rogers dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint because 

she found that Plaintiff failed to state a facially plausible claim. ECF Nos. 9, 53; see Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). From the allegations in the complaint, Judge Gonzalez Rogers 

was unable to draw the reasonable inference that Defendants were liable for the misconduct 

Plaintiff alleged. See ECF No. 53 at 3. Judge Gonzalez Rogers noted that Plaintiff’s allegations 

against Defendants were largely incoherent, and did not state any plausible claim. See id. 

Moreover, the Judge found that dismissal was proper because the complaint did not set forth a 

“cognizable legal theory” that could entitle Plaintiff to relief; Judge Gonzalez Rogers was unable 

to discern from Plaintiff’s complaint what claims Plaintiff alleged against whom, and what relief 

Plaintiff sought. See id. None of Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ findings even hint at the kind of 

antagonism that would be required to compel her disqualification.

And aside from Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ dismissal of her case, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s affidavit is legally insufficient to merit disqualification. See Azhocar, 

581 F.2d at 739; Grimes, 396 F.2d at 333. The affidavit lacks the requisite detail of the definite 

time, place, and character of facts or circumstances that would suggest Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ 

extrajudicial bias or prejudice against Plaintiff. Grimes, 396 F.2d at, 333. In addition to being 

largely incoherent, Plaintiff’s motion merely expresses her personal belief that the judge has 

committed errors. See n.1, supra; ECF No. 55 at 3. Plaintiff also asserts several instances of the 

Judge’s alleged wrongdoing without presenting any specific facts to substantiate her claims. See, 

e.g., id. Plaintiff’s affidavit consists exclusively of “unsupported opinion” and is therefore 

 

1

 See, e.g., Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Disqualify Judge, ECF No. 55, ¶ 2 (Judge 

Gonzalez Rogers said Plaintiff was vexatious, and denied her request for a restraining order); ¶ 7 

(hearing was not held on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment); ¶ 8 (Judge Gonzalez Rogers 

commented that Plaintiff “cannot possibly win relief under the statute urged”).

Case 4:14-cv-04257-YGR Document 62 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

“frivolous.” Berger, 255 U.S. at 33. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her substantial burden of 

proving bias or prejudice. Zagari, 419 F. Supp. at 501, 506 n.30.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Judge Gonzalez Rogers is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-04257-YGR Document 62 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 4