Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00466/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00466-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRAKASH NARAYAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD PS

ORDER

(ECF No. 48.)

I. Introduction

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Prakash Narayan’s motion to disqualify the 

undersigned. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff argues that by misapplying the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure the court became an “accessory after the fact.” (Id. at 3.) Because plaintiff’s argument 

is premised on a misunderstanding of the Federal Rules regarding waiver and timing to file 

responsive pleadings, the court addresses those issues in some depth. For the reasons set forth 

below, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

1

 

1 Federal Magistrate Judges have the authority rule on motions to disqualify themselves. Dev v. 

Donahoe, 668 F. App'x 815, 816 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The Magistrate Judge did not err in denying 

Dev’s motion to disqualify himself.”).

Case 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/03/20 Page 1 of 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

2

II. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his original complaint and request to proceed in forma pauperis on March 

14, 2019. The court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma 

pauperis but dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim on March 19, 2019. (ECF No. 4.) 

However, plaintiff was given the opportunity to file a first amended complaint and address the 

deficiencies noted by the court.

On April 8, 2019, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss, which was subsequently denied 

as premature on April 9, 2019. (ECF Nos. 6, 9.) 

On May 30, 2019, plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) 

On June 27, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and found that, “Based on the 

limited record in this matter, the court cannot conclude at this time that plaintiff’s action is 

frivolous, that the first amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

or that plaintiff seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant.” (ECF No. 13 at 2.) The court 

ordered plaintiff to file documents with the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service. (Id.) The court’s 

order additionally permitted defendants to waive service by returning a signed waiver to the U.S. 

Marshal. (Id. ¶ 7.) 

Based on the record before the court, to date, it appears that plaintiff never provided the 

U.S. Marshal with the required documents,2and no defendant has been served. (See ECF No. 22 

(Clerk’s denial of plaintiff’s entry of default because “Proof of Service of Summons by USM has 

not been filed”).) 

Nevertheless, “to avoid further delays,” Wells Fargo filed a waiver of service of summons 

on August 15, 2019. (ECF Nos. 28, 39 at 3.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(a)(1)(A)(ii) Wells Fargo was provided 60 days to file a responsive pleading after the request 

 

2 The court’s June 27, 2019 order instructed plaintiff to file a statement with the court 10 days 

after he supplied the U.S. Marshal with the required documents. (ECF No. 13 at 2-3.) Plaintiff 

failed to comply with the court’s order as no such statement was filed. 

Case 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 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

3

for waiver was sent.3 Wells Fargo’s responsive pleading was therefore due October 15, 2019.

4

On October 15, 2019, Wells Fargo timely filed its motion to dismiss currently pending before the 

court. (ECF No. 29.)

III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify

On December 23, 2019, plaintiff filed the present motion titled: “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 455a – Peremptory Disqualification of Judge Delaney Request.” (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff’s 

motion does not set out reasons for the undersigned’s recusal beyond generally objecting to the 

court’s comments at the hearing on Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss. 

IV. Legal Standard

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

therein.” 28 U.S.C. § 144. “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall 

disqualify h[er]self in any proceeding in which h[er] impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Under both recusal statutes, the substantive standard 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) (quoting Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

V. Analysis

Based on the procedural history outlined above, plaintiff’s arguments regarding the 

court’s abuse of discretion are without merit. First, all the defendants filed waivers of service in 

this matter, mooting plaintiff’s request for proof of service by the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff’s 

assertion that defendants had thirty days from the filing of his original complaint to waive service

 

3 This 60-day limit begins to run when a plaintiff sends a request for waiver, not when a 

defendant responds. See Cranford v. Crawford, 2014 WL 6934214, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 

2014). However, because no proper request for a waiver was sent, and no defendant was ever 

served, that 60-day limit began when the defendant filed its waiver.

4 The responsive pleading would have been due October 14, 2019, which was a federal holiday, 

making the responsive pleading due the next business day. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).

Case 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/03/20 Page 3 of 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

4

(ECF No. 48 at 2) is also without merit because that complaint was dismissed by the court and 

never served. (ECF No. 4 (dismissing plaintiff’s original complaint and ordering plaintiff to 

show cause why the action should not be dismissed or, alternatively, file an amended complaint 

“that alleges the elements of a FDCPA claim against one or more defendants”).) Rather, as noted 

above, Wells Fargo filed its motion to dismiss within the time allowed by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12. 

Regarding plaintiff’s assertion that Wells Fargo’s waiver of service was never served on 

him, the court agrees that the waiver should have been sent to plaintiff. However, the court can 

find no prejudice resulting from a defendant who has actively attempted to respond to plaintiff’s 

complaint waiving service to prevent unnecessary expense, even if that waiver was not served on 

plaintiff. Indeed, plaintiff already admitted in open court that he received and responded to Wells 

Fargo’s motion to dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 29, 35.) Therefore, even if plaintiff had been sent the 

waiver,

5

the case would be in the exact same posture. 

Because plaintiff’s motion to disqualify is premised on the undersigned intentionally 

violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that foundation is incorrect, plaintiff’s motion

is denied.

VI. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the 

undersigned (ECF No. 48) is DENIED. 

Dated: January 3, 2020

16. nara. 466

 

5

In responding to plaintiff’s argument, the court makes no determination whether plaintiff did or 

did not receive Wells Fargo’s waiver. 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD Document 51 Filed 01/03/20 Page 4 of 4