Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02693/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02693-1/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

ROBERT HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-02693CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR CHANGE OF VENUE,

FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL AND

ALLOWING PLAINTIFF

TO FILE AMENDED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION

On October 3, 2007, the Court issued an Order adopting the 

Magistrate Judge’s ruling that Plaintiff failed to include enough

information in his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

to allow a proper evaluation of whether the application should be

granted or denied. Plaintiff had objected to the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling, claiming that 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1) provides that

income from veterans’ benefits is exempt from court filing fees. 

Plaintiff argued that because veterans’ benefits comprised his

entire income, he should not have to pay the court filing fee.

In the October 3, 2007 Order, the Court adopted the Magistrate

Judge’s holding that § 5301(a)(1), which provides that veterans’

benefits are not assignable or attachable, does not require that

Case 4:07-cv-02693-CW Document 18 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 6
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

court costs be waived. The Court held that by November 5, 2007,

Plaintiff could submit an amended request to proceed IFP remedying

the deficiencies noted in the Magistrate Judge’s Order. 

On October 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended request to

proceed IFP and a motion for change of venue due to the district

court’s alleged abuse of discretion. Having read the papers filed

by Plaintiff, the Court DENIES his amended request to proceed IFP

and his motion for change of venue.

DISCUSSION

I. Change of Venue Due to Abuse of Discretion

Plaintiff argues that, by denying his request for IFP status,

this Court has created a manifest injustice for United States

veterans and therefore the Court must recuse itself and transfer

venue to the United States District Court in Los Angeles. The

Court analyzes this as a motion for recusal.

Recusable bias must be both personal and extrajudicial. 

United States v. Carignan, 600 F.2d 762, 763-64 (9th Cir. 1979). 

This means that the bias must be "directed against the party" and

cannot arise out of judicial acts. Id. As the Supreme Court has

held, "[t]he alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying must

stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the

merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his

participation in the case." United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384

U.S. 563, 583 (1966). The source of bias must be extrajudicial

because the recusal statutes were "never intended to enable a

discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings

made, for such rulings are reviewable otherwise." Ex parte

Case 4:07-cv-02693-CW Document 18 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 6
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

American Steel Barrel Co., 230 U.S. 35, 44 (1913). The test for

recusable bias is "whether or not given all the facts of the case

there are reasonable grounds for finding that the judge could not

try the case fairly, either because of the appearance or the fact

of bias or prejudice." United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869,

881 (9th Cir. 1980). 

 Plaintiff has not identified any extrajudicial source of bias

that would support a motion for recusal. The two cases Plaintiff

cites to support his argument are not on point. See Bradley v.

Richmond School Bd., 416 U.S. 696 (1974) (addressing the award of

attorneys’ fees in a school desegregation case) and AerojectGeneral Corp. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 478 F.2d 248 (9th Cir.

1973) (addressing reasonableness of location chosen to hold

arbitration hearing). There are no grounds for recusal and

Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.

II. Amended Request to Proceed IFP

In his amended request to proceed IFP, Plaintiff does not

remedy the deficiencies noted in the Magistrate Judge’s Order.

Rather, Plaintiff repeats his arguments that court fees are waived

for litigants whose income is derived solely from veterans’

benefits. Therefore, the Court construes this as a motion for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration of its October 3, 2007

Order. 

Motions for reconsideration are not a substitute for appeal or

a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. Twentieth

Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.

1980). "[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve

Case 4:07-cv-02693-CW Document 18 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 6
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

an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new

evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest

injustice." Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882

F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert

Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)).

Plaintiff does not present any new facts or law in his motion. 

Rather, he reiterates the arguments previously raised in his

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order. These arguments do not

warrant reconsideration. In support of his argument, Plaintiff 

attaches an order from the California Court of Appeal in Henderson

v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B196267 (February

15, 2007) directing the trial court to grant Plaintiff’s fee waiver

request. However, in that order, the appellate court relied on

Cruz v. Superior Court, 120 Cal. App. 4th 175, 180 (2004), which

addressed the right of indigent litigants to proceed IFP; it did

not address the issue presented here, whether court fees are waived

when the litigant’s income consists solely of veterans’ benefits. 

Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration. 

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions

for a change of venue and for reconsideration. Plaintiff is

granted leave to file an IFP application in keeping with the

Magistrate’s instructions or Plaintiff may file the complaint as a

paid complaint. If Plaintiff does not do either of these things

within ten days from the date of this order, his case shall be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s request for

Case 4:07-cv-02693-CW Document 18 Filed 11/02/07 Page 4 of 6
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 5

appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/2/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02693-CW Document 18 Filed 11/02/07 Page 5 of 6
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 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENDERSON et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-02693 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on November 2, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Robert Henderson

2111 Williams Street, Apt. 105

Long Beach, CA 90810

Dated: November 2, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-02693-CW Document 18 Filed 11/02/07 Page 6 of 6