Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05681/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05681-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARJIT BHAMBRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED 

STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.18-cv-05681-JSW (JD)

ORDER RE MOTION TO 

DISQUALIFY

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Pro se plaintiff Harjit Bhambra has moved to disqualify the Honorable Jeffrey S. White,

United States District Judge, as the presiding district judge in this case. Dkt. No. 19. The motion 

is denied. 

BACKGROUND

Bhambra filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) seeking to 

compel the production of signed oaths of office for certain judges in this district. Dkt. No. 5. 

Bhambra declined to proceed before a magistrate judge and the case was randomly reassigned to 

Judge White on September 26, 2018. Judge White set a case management conference for 

December 21, 2018, which he vacated on December 17, 2018, because Bhambra had not properly 

served defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(i), which governs service on 

the United States and its agencies. Judge White reviewed a certificate of service that Bhambra had 

filed and concluded it did not show that Rule 4(i)’s requirements had been met. Dkt. No. 15. 

Judge White attached to the order a copy of a letter about service that the office of the United 

States Attorney had sent Bhambra in October 2018 that set out the requirements for service under 

Rule 4(i). Id. Judge White also noted that FOIA expressly excludes “the courts of the United 

States” from its purview. Id. He issued an order to show cause directing Bhambra to explain why 

his suit should go forward in light of that, and how he intended to address service. Id. 

Case 4:18-cv-05681-JSW Document 23 Filed 02/26/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Bhambra filed an “objection and response” to the Order to Show Cause that made a 

number of disparaging and vituperative remarks about the federal judiciary and judges in this 

district. Dkt. No. 16. For present purposes, the most relevant portion of the response alleged that 

the letter attached to Judge White’s order indicated impermissible ex parte contacts between the 

court and defendants. Id. at 3-4. 

Bhambra’s motion to disqualify Judge White is based mainly on that allegation, along with 

nonspecific claims of “bias” and “dishonesty.” Dkt. No. 19. Although perfectly entitled to decide 

the motion himself, on January 16, 2019, Judge White referred the motion for assignment to 

another district judge, and deferred ruling on Bhambra’s response to the Order to Show Cause. 

Dkt. No. 22. Judge White also explained that he had received a copy of the letter from the United 

States Attorney in connection with his standing requirement that the office provide him with 

weekly reports identifying the assistant attorneys who would appear at his criminal calendar call. 

Id. As Judge White indicated, that requirement was implemented in response to concerns that had 

nothing at all to do with Bhambra or his case. Id. 

DISCUSSION

Bhambra moves for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. Sections 144 and 455. Under 

Section 144, the moving party must show through 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.” And under Section 455, a judge must disqualify himself “in any proceeding 

in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” or where he has a “personal bias or 

prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 

proceeding.”

While the procedure for motions under Section 144 and Section 455, respectively, is 

slightly different, the governing standard is the same. Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Ctr. for Med. 

Progress, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2017). That standard is an objective one and 

asks “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Id. (quoting United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 

909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2008)). The “reasonable person” for this inquiry is not someone who is 

Case 4:18-cv-05681-JSW Document 23 Filed 02/26/19 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

Northern District of California

hypersensitive or unduly suspicious, but rather is a well-informed, thoughtful observer. Id.

In evaluating recusal or disqualification, a judge has “as strong a duty to sit when there is 

no legitimate reason to recuse as he does to recuse when the law and facts require.” Clemens v. 

U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2005) (quotation 

omitted). Our circuit also holds that “section 455(a) claims are fact driven, and as a result, the 

analysis of a particular section 455(a) claim must be guided, not by comparison to similar 

situations addressed by prior jurisprudence, but rather by an independent examination of the 

unique facts and circumstances of the particular claim at issue.” Id. at 1178 (quotation omitted).

Nothing in the record comes even close to indicating that Judge White should be 

disqualified for any reason. Bhambra’s allegations of bias and dishonesty are entirely unsupported 

by any facts. There is also no evidence of any impermissible ex parte contacts between Judge 

White and the United States Attorney. All Bhambra establishes is that Judge White got a copy of 

the same letter Bhambra himself received. And as Judge White stated, that was in the context of a 

requirement he imposed on the United States Attorney that is completely unrelated to this case.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any facts or circumstances that would cause a “wellinformed, thoughtful observer” to conclude that Judge White’s impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned. Holland, 519 F.3d at 913-14. The motion to disqualify Judge White from continuing 

to preside over this case is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-05681-JSW Document 23 Filed 02/26/19 Page 3 of 3