Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03071/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03071-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:2651 Medical Care Recovery

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KENNETH L. CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03071-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION 

AND RECUSAL OF THE 

UNDERSIGNED JUDGE; AND 

SETTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

FOR HEARING ON JANUARY 28, 2016

[Re: ECF 180]

On December 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Amended Notice of Motions: 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.” See

Amended Notice, ECF 180. In the body of that Amended Notice, Plaintiff requests that the 

undersigned “submit to voluntary disqualification and recusal in this case.” Id. at 3. The Court 

construes that request as a motion for recusal. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for 

recusal is DENIED.

 I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Kenneth L. Campbell, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on July 7, 2014 

by filing a complaint against Barack Obama, President of the United States (“Obama”), Sylvia 

Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Burwell”), the State Bar of California (“the 

State Bar”), Senior Adults Legal Assistance (“SALA”), Kaiser Health Foundation/VA Clacher 

(“Kaiser”), and others. On December 2, 2014, Magistrate Judge Grewal – to whom the case then 

was assigned – dismissed on the record all defendants except Obama, Burwell, the State Bar, 

Case 5:14-cv-03071-BLF Document 198 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 6
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

SALA, and Kaiser. See Minute Entry, ECF 104. On February 10, 2015, Judge Grewal issued a 

written order granting motions to dismiss brought by Obama, Burwell, the State Bar, and SALA, 

with leave to amend as to claims against those defendants. See Order Granting Motions to 

Dismiss and Denying Motions for Removal, Joinder and Vacation and Withdrawal, ECF 105.

Plaintiff filed a Proposed Amendment to Complaint on August 24, 2015, which named 

Judge Grewal as a defendant. Proposed Amendment to Complaint, ECF 111. Judge Grewal then 

filed an Order of Recusal and ultimately the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on 

September 1, 2015. Order of Recusal, ECF 113; Order Reassigning Case, ECF 118. This Court 

struck Plaintiff’s Proposed Amendment to Complaint on the grounds that (1) it incorporated the 

original complaint, which is not permitted under this Court’s Civil Local Rules, and (2) it added 

numerous defendants not named in the original complaint, which was not permitted by Judge 

Grewal’s dismissal order. See Order Striking Plaintiff’s Proposed Amendment to Complaint at 2, 

ECF 119. The Court granted Plaintiff additional time to file an amended complaint curing those 

defects, and Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) within the time 

provided. See SAC, ECF 126.

Six groups of defendants have filed separate motions to dismiss, all six of which are set for 

hearing on January 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. The parties submitted a significant amount of briefing 

on those motions between October 2015 and December 2015. During that period Plaintiff filed a 

Motion for Appointment of Counsel or Guardian Ad Litem (ECF 147) and a Motion for Medical 

Examination (ECF 153). Plaintiff appears to have intended that those motions be set for hearing 

on Tuesday, November 24, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., as both motions state that date and time in the 

caption. As explained in the Court’s Standing Order Re Civil Cases, the undersigned hears civil 

motions on Thursdays at 9:00 a.m., and all hearing dates must be reserved in advance by 

contacting the Courtroom Deputy Clerk. See Standing Order Re Civil Cases at 1. Because 

Plaintiff did not reserve a hearing date, his motions were not placed on the Court’s calendar. The 

undersigned was unaware that Plaintiff believed that a hearing had been scheduled for Tuesday, 

November 24, 2015, a date on which the Court had no matters on calendar. Thus when Plaintiff 

traveled to the courthouse on that date, the courtroom was dark. In fact, the undersigned judge 

Case 5:14-cv-03071-BLF Document 198 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 6
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

was working on November 24, 2015, and would have made every effort to set the hearing on a 

date convenient to Plaintiff had she become aware of Plaintiff’s requested hearing date with 

sufficient time to give notice to the opposing parties so that they could appear. None of the 

opposing parties appeared on November 24, 2015.

Plaintiff thereafter filed a document captioned “Amended Notice of Motions: 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.” See

Amended Notice, ECF 180. In the body of that document, Plaintiff indicates that he intends to 

argue his Motion for Appointment of Counsel or Guardian Ad Litem and Motion for Medical 

Examination on January 28, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., the date and time set for hearing the pending 

motions to dismiss. See id. Also in the body of the document, Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s 

“rudeness and discourtesy” in failing to inform him that the November 24, 2015 hearing date was 

unavailable shows that the undersigned judge “is clearly biased and prejudiced against plaintiff as 

both a disabled and pro se litigant.” Amended Notice at 2-3, ECF 180. On that basis, Plaintiff 

requests that the undersigned “submit to voluntary disqualification and recusal in this case.” Id.

 II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Before turning to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion for recusal, the Court apologizes to 

Plaintiff for the inconvenience that he suffered when he traveled to the courthouse on Tuesday, 

November 24, 2015, only to find the courtroom dark. As discussed above, the motion was not 

placed on the Court’s calendar and the undersigned judge was unaware that Plaintiff intended to 

appear on that date. The Court certainly did not intend for Plaintiff to travel to the courthouse to 

no purpose, and it acknowledges Plaintiff’s understandable frustration at having done so. 

Plaintiff still has not reserved a hearing date for his motions as required by this Court’s 

Standing Order Re Civil Cases. However, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and the 

inconvenience he suffered when he traveled to the courthouse on November 24, 2015, the Court 

hereby directs the Clerk to set Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel or Guardian Ad 

Litem (ECF 147) and Motion for Medical Examination (ECF 153) for hearing on January 28, 

2016 at 9:00 a.m., to be heard with the six motions to dismiss previously set for hearing on that 

date. The Court also directs the Clerk to set Plaintiff’s discovery requests (ECF 165, 193, and 

Case 5:14-cv-03071-BLF Document 198 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 6
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

194) for hearing on January 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Finally, the Court directs the Clerk to set 

Plaintiff’s Rebuttal to Los Altos Sub Acute and Application for Imposition of Sanctions (ECF 

176) for hearing on January 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. The Court has cleared its Law and Motion 

Calendar on that date of all matters except those pertaining to this case so that the Court may give 

its full attention to the issued raised by Plaintiff and Defendants. The Court’s sua sponte setting of 

Plaintiff’s motions on the January 28, 2016 calendar is a courtesy; that setting does not change the 

parties’ rights to respond to those motions in accordance with this Court’s Civil Local Rules. 

The Clerk shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of the Court’s Standing Order Re Civil Cases, 

which will inform Plaintiff of the procedures for setting any future motions for hearing before the 

Court.

The Court encourages Plaintiff to contact the Federal Pro Se Program, a free program that 

offers limited legal services and advice to parties who are representing themselves. The Federal 

Pro Se Program has offices in two locations, listed below. Help is provided by appointment and 

on a drop-in basis. Parties may make appointments by calling the program’s staff attorney, Mr. 

Kevin Knestrick, at 408-297-1480. Additional information regarding the Federal Pro Se Program 

is available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj.

Federal Pro Se Program

United States Courthouse

280 South 1st Street

2nd Floor, Room 2070

San Jose, CA 95113

Monday to Thursday 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm

Fridays by appointment only

Federal Pro Se Program

The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

152 North 3rd Street

3rd Floor

San Jose, CA 95112

Monday to Thursday 9:00 am – 12:00 pm

Fridays by appointment only

 III. MOTION FOR RECUSAL

Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 

provides for recusal where a party files “a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before 

whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any 

adverse party.” 28 U.S.C. § 144. The affidavit must “state the facts and the reasons for the belief 

that bias or prejudice exists.” Id. Recusal is required only if the bias arose from an extrajudicial 

Case 5:14-cv-03071-BLF Document 198 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

source. Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1387-88 (9th Cir. 1988). If the judge 

against whom an affidavit of bias is filed determines that it is timely and legally sufficient, the 

judge “shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such 

proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 144; see also Civ. L.R. 3-14 (judge must refer motion for recusal to the 

Clerk for reassignment to another judge when the judge finds the affidavit to be “neither legally 

insufficient nor interposed for delay”). However, if the judge finds the affidavit to be legally 

insufficient, the judge may deny the motion for recusal. Toth, 862 F.2d at 1388 (“Only after the 

legal sufficiency of the affidavit is determined does it become the duty of the judge to ‘proceed no 

further’ in the case.”). 

Section 455 requires a judge to recuse “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned,” or “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 

U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). “As with § 144, the provisions of § 455(a) & (b)(1) require recusal only if 

the bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made 

during the course of the proceeding.” Toth, 862 F.2d at 1388. Also as with § 144, it is appropriate 

for a judge to deny a recusal motion if the motion is legally insufficient. Id. 

In the present case, Plaintiffs seeks recusal based upon the Court’s “rudeness and 

discourtesy” in failing to inform him that the November 24, 2015 hearing date was unavailable. 

Amended Notice at 2-3, ECF 180. Plaintiff believes that the perceived discourtesy of the Court 

shows bias and prejudice against Plaintiff. Amended Notice at 2-3, ECF 180. Plaintiff’s 

assertions are not presented in the form of an affidavit, as required by § 144; however, the 

document in which those assertions appear is signed under penalty of perjury. See Amended 

Notice at 3, ECF 180. Even viewing the document liberally as an “affidavit,” it does not present 

any facts that demonstrate bias or prejudice. As discussed in detail above, the undersigned judge

was unaware that Plaintiff believed his motion had been set for hearing on November 24, 2015, 

and sincerely regrets the inconvenience to Plaintiff caused by the calendaring misunderstanding. 

Moreover, the events described by Plaintiff – the fact that the courtroom was dark when Plaintiff 

arrived for an unscheduled hearing – do not satisfy the requirement that the bias stems from an 

extrajudicial source.

Case 5:14-cv-03071-BLF Document 198 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Because Plaintiff has not presented a timely and sufficient affidavit demonstrating bias or 

prejudice, referral of his motion for determination by another judge is unnecessary. For the 

reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s alternative request that Judge Freeman be joined as a party defendant also is 

DENIED. Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed amended complaint as required by Civil Local 

Rule 10-1. This denial is without prejudice.

 IV. ORDER 

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is DENIED;

(2) The Clerk shall set the following motions and requests of Plaintiff for hearing on 

January 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.: Motion for Appointment of Counsel or Guardian 

Ad Litem (ECF 147); Motion for Medical Examination (ECF 153); discovery 

requests (ECF 165, 193, and 194); and Rebuttal to Los Altos Sub Acute and 

Application for Imposition of Sanctions (ECF 176). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03071-BLF Document 198 Filed 01/21/16 Page 6 of 6