Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-04341/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-04341-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

MELINA RAZAVI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARLOS COTI, an individual; and GEICO 

INSURANCE COMPANY, a business 

entity of unknown form,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04341-BLF 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S LETTER OF 

JANUARY 29, 2020

On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter providing addresses for service of process on 

Defendants, and raising a number of other issues. See Letter, ECF 23. The U.S. Marshal has been 

ordered to effect service of process on Defendants in a separate order. Among the other issues 

raised in the letter are Plaintiff’s request for a telephone call from a court attorney, Plaintiff’s 

assertion of misconduct by the undersigned, and the language used in the order screening 

Plaintiff’s operative third amended complaint. The Court addresses those issues as follows.

Plaintiff’s Request for a Telephone Call from the Federal Pro Se Program Attorney

Plaintiff represents that she is suffering from serious medical conditions, including cancer, 

heart failure, kidney failure, and liver failure; is homeless; and does not have access to materials 

necessary to litigate this case. She states that the Court has refused to provide her with an attorney 

but has referred her to the Court’s Federal Pro Se Program. The Federal Pro Se Program 

maintains an office at the San Jose Courthouse, where the program attorney provides free 

assistance to pro se litigants by appointment and on a drop-in basis. Plaintiff asserts that the 

“court attorneys” refused to help her, conspired with the Court against her, lied to her, and 

Case 5:17-cv-04341-BLF Document 25 Filed 02/06/20 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

“harassed and violated” her. Letter at 2. Plaintiff nonetheless requests that this Court direct “a 

court attorney” to call her. Id. The Court understands Plaintiff to be requesting a telephone call 

from the Federal Pro Se Program attorney.

Plaintiff’s telephone number is not listed on the docket and the Court has been unable to 

locate it on any of Plaintiff’s filings in this case. Plaintiff may contact the Federal Pro Se Program 

attorney by calling 408-297-1480, emailing kknestrick@asianlawalliance.org, or going to the 

Federal Pro Se Program office on Monday through Thursday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m. The Federal Pro Se Program office is located at the United States District Court, 280 S. 

1st Street, 2nd Floor, Room 2070, San Jose, California, 95113.

Assertion of Misconduct by the Undersigned

Plaintiff asserts that the undersigned has conspired with other judges to cause Plaintiff’s 

homelessness. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the undersigned “has illegally caused 

homelessness for me, because she dismissed another case of mine and with prejudice, because of 

the lying, accusatory flaggings of my name by court, and this led to the illegal, disastrous 

homelessness I’m suffering from, while I’m disabled and bedridden.” Letter at 1. Plaintiff states 

that she previously has asked for removal of the undersigned from this case. However, the docket 

does not reflect any motion for recusal in this case. To the extent Plaintiff intends her letter to be a 

motion for recusal, the motion is denied. “The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The alleged prejudice must result 

from an extrajudicial source; a judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” Id. 

Plaintiff’s letter does not disclose any facts that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that 

the undersigned’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 

Objection to Language in Order Screening Third Amended Complaint

Plaintiff objects to language in the Court’s Order Screening Third Amended Complaint, 

specifically the Court’s statement that Plaintiff’s pleading “meets the ‘low threshold’ of § 1915” 

necessary to order service of process by the U.S. Marshal. See Order Screening Third Amended 

Case 5:17-cv-04341-BLF Document 25 Filed 02/06/20 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

Complaint at 2, ECF 20. Plaintiff asserts that her pleading meets all federal requirements and she 

objects to the suggestion that it may not meet all requirements. The language in question was 

drawn from controlling Ninth Circuit case authority addressing the screening requirement of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Order Screening Third Amended Complaint at 1-2, ECF 20. This Court 

was not required to determine whether Plaintiff’s third amended complaint satisfies all applicable 

pleading requirements in order to screen it under § 1915. See id. The Court was required to 

determine whether Plaintiff had stated a “colorable” claim, and it did so. See id.

Having reviewed the issues raised in Plaintiff’s January 29, 2020 letter, the Court 

concludes that no further action is required except for ordering service of process by the U.S. 

Marshal, which the Court has done in a separate order.

Dated: February 6, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-04341-BLF Document 25 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 3