Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04149/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04149-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

TSEGAI HAILE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et

al.,

Defendants

 /

No. 08-4149 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO DISQUALIFY

By order filed April 7, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff’s application filed March 24,

2010 (“Application”), by which Application plaintiff sought an order of disqualification. On

April 15, 2010, plaintiff filed a “Motion and Peremptory Challenge to Disqualify Judge

Chesney” (“Motion”). Having read and considered the Motion, the Court hereby rules as

follows.

The Court finds plaintiff’s Motion is both substantively meritless and procedurally

deficient. First, because plaintiff solely relies on court rulings, plaintiff has, again, failed to

identify any cognizable basis for disqualification. See United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864,

869 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding bias must stem from “extrajudicial source”). Second, the

Motion is deficient because it seeks, in essence, reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling

denying disqualification. (See Order Denying Application, filed Apr. 7, 2010)

Case 3:08-cv-04149-MMC Document 196 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Reconsideration is only available upon leave of court, see Civil L.R. 7-9(a), and only if

based on a showing of at least one of the following grounds:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to

the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the

exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the

interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of

law occurring after the time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the

Court before such interlocutory order. 

See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Plaintiff has made no such showing.

Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above, the Motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04149-MMC Document 196 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2