Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02784/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02784-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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 

ANTHONY CHRISANTHIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02784-WHA (WHO)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISQUALIFY JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 27

 Plaintiff Anthony Chrisanthis has filed a motion to disqualify the Hon. William H. Alsup 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 455.1 Dkt. No. 27. Judge Alsup referred Chrisanthis’s motion to 

disqualify to the Clerk for random reassignment to another judge. Dkt. No. 28. The Clerk 

referred the matter to me. Dkt. No. 30. 

28 U.S.C. Section 455 provides that: 

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall 

disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned. 

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: 

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 

party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts 

concerning the proceeding; 

 

1 Chrisanthis’s motion is captioned “Motion to Reconsider; Motion for Recusal.” Consistent with 

that, Chrisanthis also appears to seek leave to move for reconsideration of Judge Alsup’s order 

relating this case to prior cases filed by Chrisanthis. See Dkt. No. 27 at 2 (requesting that 

“Plaintiff be granted the opportunity to provide Points and Authorities to the Court on why the 

administrative motion should have been denied”). I address only Chrisanthis’s motion to 

disqualify; this order has no bearing on Judge Alsup’s order relating cases or on Chrisanthis’s 

motion for leave to reconsider that order. 

Case 3:14-cv-02784-WHA Document 31 Filed 01/05/15 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

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the 

matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously 

practiced law served during such association as a lawyer 

concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a 

material witness concerning it; 

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in 

such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material 

witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion 

concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; 

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his 

spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a 

financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a 

party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be 

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; 

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of 

relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: 

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, 

or trustee of a party; 

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; 

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that 

could be substantially affected by the outcome of the 

proceeding; 

(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material 

witness in the proceeding. 

None of those disqualifying circumstances is present here. Chrisanthis’s entire 

disqualification argument consists of the following paragraph: 

Judge Alsup presided over all matters in the previous case involving 

Plaintiff and ruled for Defendants. Defendants now attempt to have 

the current complaint dismissed by linking the previous lawsuits to 

the current complaint and requesting the same Judge to rule. This 

procedure would seem unfair to Plaintiff. 

Dkt. No. 27 at 2. 

 I have reviewed the docket in this matter to better understand Chrisanthis’s argument and 

the nature of the previous lawsuits to which he refers. It appears that Chrisanthis was employed 

by the Department of Veterans Affairs as a therapist until he resigned in 2002. He has filed three 

lawsuits regarding the terms of his resignation, including the present lawsuit. Judge Alsup 

dismissed the first two lawsuits. See Chrisanthis v. Department of Veterans Affairs, et al., Case 

No. 07-cv-00566 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2007) (order granting motion to dismiss); Chrisanthis v. 

Case 3:14-cv-02784-WHA Document 31 Filed 01/05/15 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

United States, et al., Case No. 08-cv-02472 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2008) (order granting motion to 

dismiss). A motion to dismiss in the present lawsuit is pending. 

That Judge Alsup presided over the two prior cases and dismissed those complaints does 

not create a conflict warranting his disqualification from the present case. Chrisanthis believes 

that this result “seems unfair.” Dkt. No. 27, p. 2. But he has not made a showing that Judge 

Alsup’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” to warrant disqualification under 28 U.S.C. 

Section 455(a). Nor has Chrisanthis established that any of the specific circumstances enumerated 

in 28 U.S.C. Section 455(b) is present. 

Chrisanthis’s motion to disqualify Judge Alsup is DENIED. This case, including the 

pending motion to dismiss, shall remain before Judge Alsup. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 

______________________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-02784-WHA Document 31 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 3