Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01392/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01392-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

HUNG HA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

SWEET B. et al, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-1392 SBA 

ORDER 

Docket 9, 10, 12, 13, 16 

Plaintiff Hung Ha (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant pro se action on March 30, 2009, against 

University of California at Berkeley police officers and two employees at the university’s 

Recreational Sports Facility. He alleged federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as 

various state law causes of action. On July 16, 2009, the Court dismissed the action under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as to the federal claims and declined to assert supplemental jurisdiction 

over the state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Subsequent to the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff filed 

a slew of motions. In addition, on March 5, 2010, Plaintiff paid the $350 filing fee. The Court 

addresses these developments below. 

I. MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

Plaintiff moves to disqualify the undersigned under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455, 

which provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall 

disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned.” In analyzing a section 455(a) disqualification motion, the Court applies an 

objective test: “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude 

that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for 

Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The question is “whether a reasonable person perceives a significant risk that the 

Case 4:09-cv-01392-SBA Document 20 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits.” Id. (quoting In re Mason, 916 F.2d 

384, 385 (7th Cir.1990)). 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s request for recusal is moot, as this action has been 

dismissed. That aside, Plaintiff has not presented grounds for recusal. In the verified affidavit 

accompanying the motion, Plaintiff states that he has filed numerous cases in state and federal 

courts in the San Francisco Bay Area and has “studied the behavior of judges and justices of 

appelalte [sic] court throughout these many years.” Mot. at 2. Based on those studies, Plaintiff 

has concluded that “bad-faith judicial acts are present everywhere in the writings of judicial 

officers,” including the undersigned. Id. He takes exception to having been declared a 

vexatious litigant by other courts, and claims that the undersigned “considers [him] a vexatious 

litigant” as well. Id. at 3. Beyond these general and conclusory assertions, Plaintiff fails to 

offer any facts demonstrating that recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is necessary or appropriate. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is DENIED. 

II. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e), which the Court liberally construes as a motion for reconsideration. See Fuller v. M.G. 

Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th 

Cir.1985). “There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the 

motion is ‘necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is 

based;’ 2) the moving party presents ‘newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 

3) the motion is necessary to ‘prevent manifest injustice;’ or 4) there is an ‘intervening change 

in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 

2003) (citations omitted). A district court has “considerable discretion” in considering a Rule 

59(e) motion. Id. Relief based on this rule generally is reserved for “highly unusual 

circumstances.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 

(9th Cir. 1993). 

Here, Plaintiff’s motion consists of little more than an eleven-page rambling diatribe in 

which he accuses the undersigned as well as other unspecified federal and state court judges of 

Case 4:09-cv-01392-SBA Document 20 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

being biased against him. Aside from purporting to cite the Rule 59 standard, Plaintiff fails to 

provide the Court with any cogent argument sufficient to persuade the Court to reconsider its 

prior ruling. At best, Plaintiff does nothing more than reargue the merits of his complaint, 

which is an insufficient basis to warrant reconsideration. See Costello v. United States Gov’t, 

765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991) (“courts avoid considering Rule 59(e) motions 

where the grounds for amendment are restricted to either repetitive contentions of matters 

which were before the court on its prior consideration or contentions which might have been 

raised prior to the challenged judgment”). Accordingly, the Court, in its discretion, DENIES 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Docket 9, 10.) 

III. MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME/PAYMENT OF FILING FEE

Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to pay the filing fee in this action and for an 

extension of time to file an appeal. (Docket 10, 13, 15) He also has tendered a filing fee in the 

amount of $350 to the Clerk of the Court. 

At the time Plaintiff commenced this action, he did not pay a filing fee. Instead, he 

filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docket 3.) By 

proceeding in that manner, the strictures of section 1915(e)(2) became germane. This statute 

provides that “the court shall dismiss the case” if it determines that (1) “the allegation of 

poverty is untrue” or (2) that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state claim on which 

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, the Court determined that Plaintiff failed to state a claim 

and thus dismissed the action. 

The Court’s ruling under section 1915(e)(2), however, does not prevent Plaintiff from 

presenting his claims in a separate complaint (opened as a new action) accompanied by a filing 

fee. “Dismissals under the in forma pauperis statute are in a class of their own, acting not as 

dismissals on the merits but, rather, as denials of in forma pauperis status.” Marts v. Hines, 

117 F.3d 1504, 1505 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 

(1992). Thus, a dismissal of a complaint filed in forma pauperis does not preclude “the 

Case 4:09-cv-01392-SBA Document 20 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

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 

subsequent filing of a fee-paid complaint making the same allegations.” Marts, 117 F.3d at 

1505. 

In this case, Plaintiff paid the $350 filing fee after the Court already dismissed the 

Complaint. As a result, Plaintiff cannot pursue his claims under the above case number. 

However, Plaintiff nonetheless may pursue his claims in a separate action by paying the filing 

fee and filing a new complaint, making the same allegations made in this case. The Court will 

order the Clerk to refund the filing fee paid by Plaintiff in this action.1

 Since Plaintiff does not 

require an extension of time from the Court to file a new action, the Court need not reach the 

merits of those requests, which are DENIED as moot. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification (Docket 12) and motion for 

reconsideration (Docket 9, 10) are DENIED. 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time to pay the filing fee (Docket 13, 16) are 

DENIED as moot. 

3. The Clerk shall forthwith refund the amount of $350 to Plaintiff Hung Ha. The 

refund check shall be sent to: 

Hung Ha 

P. O. Box 367 

Berkeley, CA 94701-0367 

4. The Court’s Order of July 16, 2009 (Docket 7) is modified nunc pro tunc on 

Page 6, line 4, to replace “without leave to amend” with “without prejudice.” 

5. Plaintiff may file a new complaint against the same defendants and alleging the 

same claims as this action, provided that he accompany such filing with the requisite $350 

filing fee. In the event Plaintiff chooses file a new action, he shall serve each Defendant with 

 1 So that there is no ambiguity regarding the effect of the Court’s prior dismissal on 

Plaintiff’s ability to proceed with a paid Complaint, the Court will modify its Order of July 16, 

2009 to reflect that that dismissal is “without prejudice.” 

Case 4:09-cv-01392-SBA Document 20 Filed 03/17/10 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

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 

Summons and the Complaint within the time-frame set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(m). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-01392-SBA Document 20 Filed 03/17/10 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HUNG HA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SWEET,B. et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-01392 SBA 

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 March 17, 2010, 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. 

Hung Ha 

P.O. Box 367 

Berkeley, CA 94701-0367 

Dated: March 17, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-01392-SBA Document 20 Filed 03/17/10 Page 6 of 6