Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05281/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05281-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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 1

 The Court has corrected misspellings.

C-09-5281 ORDER Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Hung Ha,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. Attorney General, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 09-5281 JL

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW CONSENT (Docket # 195)

The Court received Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his consent to this Court’s

jurisdiction, e-filed at Docket # 195, styled as “application for leave to withdraw consent to

proceed before a magistrate (tentative version).” This was filed after the Court’s dismissal

of his complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. (Docket # 186). The application

also alleges misconduct by this Court as grounds for withdrawal of consent. So the Court

will also treat Plaintiff’s pleading as an affidavit of judicial misconduct under Civil Local Rule

315.

Plaintiff’s grounds for withdrawing his consent to this Court’s jurisdiction,1

 as stated

in an e-mail to opposing counsel, are:

“1) judicial misconduct with the appearance of conniving with attorneys of Patton

Wotan & Carlisle LLP and those of Low Ball and Lynch;

2) judicial misconduct of actually conniving with said attorneys and, via them, their

clients (who are defendants);

Case 3:09-cv-05281-JL Document 283 Filed 07/29/10 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

C-09-5281 ORDER Page 2 of 4

3) judicial misconduct of associating with certain persons who may be or could have

been indicted and prosecuted for very serious crimes under either or both California state

laws and federal laws; and

4) judicial misconduct that probably are within purview of the criminal law of

California state and federal law.”

Plaintiff again challenges the Court’s rulings denying his motions and its alleged

failure to “take any action toward the offending attorneys and defendants whose

misconduct is evinced in the ‘motions’ and failure to answer in substance the allegations of

my complaint. Hon fails totally to admonish, if not discipline, defense attorneys for

misconduct that is ‘unbecoming of attorneys.’”

Plaintiff argues that the Court’s issuance of the Order to Show Cause

mischaracterizes him as one who “flagrantly abuses the justice system, instead of seeking

social justice through due administration of the law.” He argues that there is no evidence in

favor of the Show Cause order.

Plaintiff’s legal argument is that the Court has committed misconduct, by “conniving”

with defense counsel. Plaintiff argues that extraordinary circumstances exist, specifically,

that the attorneys representing Defendants are themselves “extraordinary circumstances.

They must be disbarred.” The attorneys and this Court are “dishonest and unscrupulous.”

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court itself “has committed such acts for which he

may be indicted and be prosecuted under both California state law and federal law, by

Department of Justice fo California, and U.S. Department of Justice.” Plaintiff also invokes

the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as grounds for permitting him to withdraw his

consent to this Court’s jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Withdrawal of consent in civil cases is not permitted except in extraordinary

circumstances, Fellman v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1984) see also

Carter v. Sea Land Services, Inc., 816 F.2d 1018, 1020 (5th Cir. 1987) (court would not

"read into the statute a rule that would allow a party to express conditional consent . . . 

Case 3:09-cv-05281-JL Document 283 Filed 07/29/10 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

C-09-5281 ORDER Page 3 of 4

thereby obtaining what amounts to a free shot at a favorable outcome or a veto of an

unfavorable outcome.") This view was adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Dixon v. Ylst, 990

F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). Factors to consider include the burdens and costs to

litigants, and whether consent was voluntary and uncoerced. Pacemaker Diagnostic 

Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc., 725 F.2d 537, 543 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied 

469 U.S. 824 (1984). 

This Court finds that Plaintiff presents the classic instance of a litigant who is

dissatisfied with the outcome of his case and seeks a new judge in hope of obtaining a

more favorable disposition. 

The burden and prejudice to the other litigants in this case, which is now closed,

would be unacceptable, for all the reasons specified in the Court’s Order regarding the

vexatious litigant issue. In fact, permitting Plaintiff to withdraw his consent now would

amount to reversing this Court’s dismissal of his lawsuit, without an appeal. 

Further, this Court lacks jurisdiction to permit Plaintiff to withdraw his consent, now

that his case has been dismissed, since the Court retained jurisdiction solely to rule on the

Order to Show Cause. 

The Court permitted Plaintiff at the hearing on the Order to Show Cause to present

evidence whether his consent had been coerced or was otherwise involuntary, but he failed

to present any such evidence, nor could he counter the evidence of prejudice to

Defendants if he were permitted to withdraw his consent, or the Court’s lack of jurisdiction

to permit him to withdraw consent, now that his case has been dismissed with prejudice

and without leave to amend.

For all the above reasons, Plaintiff’s application for permission to withdraw his

consent to this Court’s jurisdiction is denied.

Affidavit of Judicial Misconduct

Civil Local Rule 3-315 provides that whenever an affidavit of bias or prejudice

directed at a Judge of this Court is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, and the Judge has

determined not to recuse him or herself and found that the affidavit is neither legally

Case 3:09-cv-05281-JL Document 283 Filed 07/29/10 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

C-09-5281 ORDER Page 4 of 4

insufficient nor interposed for delay, the Judge shall refer the request for disqualification to

the Clerk for random assignment to another Judge. In the case at bar, this Court finds

Plaintiff’s affidavit to be both legally insufficient and interposed for delay. The reason for this

finding is that Plaintiff’s allegations that the Court has “connived” or “conspired” with

Defendants has no legal or factual basis: Plaintiff is merely dissatisfied with the Court’s

rulings. This is no more a justification for a finding of misconduct than it is a basis for

permitting withdrawal of consent. 

In addition, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s request is interposed for purposes of

delay. Plaintiff filed numerous requests for extensions of time to file his appeal, for the

Court to retract its unfavorable rulings, and for entry of default and other sanctions against

Defendants. Many of these motions have been filed after his case was dismissed. The

Court can only find that Plaintiff is filing this blizzard of meritless post-judgment motions in

an attempt to forestall the inevitable end of his case. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis

for referring Plaintiff’s affidavit of judicial misconduct to another judge of this Court.

Plaintiff’s request for disqualification of the assigned judge, incorporated in Plaintiff’s motion

to withdraw consent, is therefore denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 29, 2010 

__________________________________

 James Larson

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\09-5281\Order deny 195.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-05281-JL Document 283 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 4