Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01854/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01854-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AROR-ARK O’DIAH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DISCOVER BANK, et al.,

Defendants. /

AROR-ARK O’DIAH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUDGE WILLIAM DUANE BENTON, 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 19-00816 WHA

No. C 19-01854 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

TO VACATE

This order addresses two motions to vacate filed by pro se plaintiff Aror-Ark O’Diah

in the matters of O’Diah v. Discover Bank, et al., Case No. 19-00816, and O’Diah v.

Judge William Duane Benton, et al., Case No. 19-01854. 

On February 14, 2019, in O’Diah v. Discover Bank, et al., Case No. 19-00816, plaintiff

filed suit against twelve defendants, including Discover Bank and its operations managers;

New York-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital and associated employees; Weill Cornell

Medicine; New York Medical and Diagnostic Center; New York Human Resources

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 28 Filed 08/09/19 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Administration; two New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance officials;

and the Social Security Administration (Case No. 19-00816; Dkt. No. 1). In that action, an

order dated May 7 adopted Judge Elizabeth Laporte’s report and recommendation in full and

dismissed plaintiff’s claims against all defendants except those related to plaintiff’s appeal of a

Social Security decision, which were transferred to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of New York (id.; Dkt. No. 21). 

On April 5, in O’Diah v. Judge William Duane Benton, et al., Case No. 19-01854,

plaintiff filed suit against forty-six defendants, among whom are federal judges, heads of

federal agencies, employees of state and local agencies in New York, and various corporate

entities (Case No. 19-01854; Dkt. No. 1). On April 29, a prior order issued by the undersigned

judge related this action to the one discussed above, Case No. 19-00816 (id.; Dkt. No. 8). In

O’Diah v. Judge William Duane Benton, et al., Case No. 19-01854, an order dated May 15

dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims. A final judgment ruled for all defendants (id.; Dkt. Nos.

10–11). On May 17, plaintiff appealed and moved to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 60. 

On June 14, an order vacated the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to vacate. On July 3, plaintiff

filed a renewed motion to vacate (id.; Dkt. Nos. 13–14, 25–26). 

Rule 60(b) sets forth the grounds for relief from a final judgment, including in relevant

part: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule

59(b); or (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or

extrinsic), representation, or misconduct by an opposing party. 

1. O’DIAH V. DISCOVER BANK, ET AL.

In O’Diah v. Discover Bank, et al., Case No. 19-00816, plaintiff’s motion to vacate

includes sweeping allegations of conspiracy and “retaliatory and discriminatory acts” (Case No.

19-00816; Dkt. No. 26 at 2). Plaintiff contends that “newly discovered evidences” shows that

Defendants Discover Bank, Judge Sandra Feuerstein, and Judge Pamela Chen “corruptly

pressured” the undersigned judge to dismiss the action in a prior order (id. at 9). Plaintiff,

however, fails to disclose the nature of this supposed new evidence. Rest assured that no

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 28 Filed 08/09/19 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

pressure, corrupt or otherwise, had anything to do with the dismissal. In addition, plaintiff

asserts that the undersigned judge dismissed the action “via fraud” and “deliberate

misrepresentation in disguise” and characterizes a prior order’s transfer of his Social Security

claims to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York as “corruptly

designed to deny and deprived” plaintiff of “equal protection” (id. at 9–10). Considering that

plaintiff provides no support for his allegations of fraud and misconduct other than his

characterizations, plaintiff’s broad conspiracy allegations fail to meet the Rule 60(b) standard

and do not warrant reopening the case. 

2. O’DIAH V. JUDGE WILLIAM DUANE BENTON, ET AL.

In O’Diah v. Judge William Duane Benton, et al., Case No. 19-01854, plaintiff’s

memorandum in support of his motion to vacate broadly alleges, inter alia, that newly

discovered evidence reveals instances of fraud, judicial conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and

“reckless disregard for the truth via deliberate misrepresentation” (Case No. 19-01854; Dkt. No.

15 at 16–17). Specifically, plaintiff contends that Judge Elizabeth Laporte used

“corrupted practices in disguise” and “fraud in disguise” when she “back dated” her report and

recommendation and influenced the undersigned judge to dismiss the instant action (id. at

14–15). Plaintiff alleges that Judge Laporte acted “in bad faith via extrajudicial conspiracies”

and “reckless disregard for truth” when she wrote and mailed the “false” report and

recommendation (id. at 16–17). Plaintiff also questions whether or not Judge Laporte had

jurisdiction over the action (id. at 18). Given that the alleged misconduct pertains solely to the

related case discussed above, Case No. 19-00816, plaintiff’s contentions are not relevant to the

instant motion. Moreover, these allegations fail to meet the Rule 60(b) standard for the same

reasons stated above — namely, plaintiff provides no factual support for these sweeping

allegations. 

For the foregoing reasons, the motions to vacate are DENIED. 

* * *

To date, in O’Diah v. Discover Bank, et al., Case No. 19-00816, plaintiff’s claims against

all defendants except for those related specifically to his appeal of the Social Security

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 28 Filed 08/09/19 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

administrative law judge’s decision regarding his date of disability have been dismissed without

prejudice. His Social Security claims were transferred to the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 19-00816; Dkt. Nos. 21–22). In O’Diah v.

Judge William Duane Benton, et al., Case No. 19-01854, final judgment has been entered

in favor of all defendants and the file closed (Case No. 19-01854; Dkt. No. 11). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-01854-WHA Document 28 Filed 08/09/19 Page 4 of 4