Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01640/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01640-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 10-1640 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL ETC..

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 5/26/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YONG TAN HUANG,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

TIM BELL, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 10-1640 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 1

RECUSAL; DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; AND SETTING

DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT OF

FILING FEE 

[re: document nos. 3, 6, 10]

On October 26, 2009, Plaintiff Yong Tan Huang (“Huang”) filed suit against Tim and

Gayle Bell (“the Bells”). Although the nature and bases for Huang’s claims were not clear from

the complaint, it appeared that Huang claimed to have suffered injury while working on the

Bells’ property and that Huang also claimed that a number of non-party judges of the Superior

and Appellate Courts of California had acted improperly in adjudicating claims arising out of that

injury. See Huang v. Bell, C 09-5099 JF (PVT). On December 7, 2010, this Court issued an

order denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and granting Plaintiff thirty

days to pay the filing fee. The order stated that if Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee within thirty

Case 5:10-cv-01640-JF Document 13 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C 10-1640 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL ETC..

(JFLC2)

days, the Court would dismiss the action without prejudice. On January 8, 2010, Huang filed an

amended complaint but did not pay the filing fee. On February 2, 2010, this Court dismissed the

action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. The Court issued additional orders on

March 24, 2010 and April 12, 2010, denying Huang’s motion for relief from dismissal and

clarifying that the action had not been dismissed on the merits but for failure to pay the filing fee.

On April 16, 2010, Huang filed a Notice of Removal, apparently purporting to remove the

instant action from the Santa Clara Superior Court. The complaint in the instant action alleges

that Huang was injured while constructing a deck on the Bells’ property. Huang sues the Bells

and two state court judges; the claims against the Bells appear to be for negligence, while the

claims against the judges appear to be for misconduct in the litigation of the state court action. 

Huang also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On May 7, 2010, this Court related the instant case to the earlier-filed case. As a result,

the instant case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. Huang has filed two motions seeking

recusal of the undersigned on the ground of bias. Huang’s motions arise from his claim that this

Court improperly adjudicated the earlier-filed case.

Huang’s motions for recusal are governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. “‘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.’” Taylor v.

Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Studley,

783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986)). “To warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem from an

extrajudicial source.” Id. “‘[A] judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.’” 

Id. (quoting Studley, 783 F.2d at 939). Moreover, [a] judge is not disqualified by a litigant’s suit

or threatened suit against him, or by a litigant’s intemperate and scurrilous attacks.” Studley, 783

F.2d at 940 (citations omitted). “[T]he challenged judge himself should rule on the legal

sufficiency of a recusal motion in the first instance.” Id. Huang’s motions for recusal are based

upon this Court’s adverse rulings in his earlier-filed case. As noted above, a prior adverse ruling

is not sufficient cause for recusal. Accordingly, the motions for recusal will be denied.

Huang’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis likewise will be denied. 

Case 5:10-cv-01640-JF Document 13 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Case No. C 10-1640 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL ETC..

(JFLC2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action

in forma pauperis if the court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees

necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court may deny in forma pauperis

status, however, if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous

or without merit. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Tripati v. First

National Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987). As presently drafted, the complaint

appears to be without merit in that it fails to set forth a cognizable claim against any of the

defendants. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint AND pay the filing fee within thirty

(30) days of receiving this order, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.

ORDER

(1) Huang’s motions for recusal are DENIED; 

(2) Huang’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; and

(3) Huang shall file an amended complaint AND shall pay the filing fee within thirty

(30) days of receiving this order. If Huang fails to file an amended pleading or to

pay the filing fee, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: May 25, 2010

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-01640-JF Document 13 Filed 05/26/10 Page 3 of 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

4

Case No. C 10-1640 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL ETC..

(JFLC2)

Copies of this Order were served upon the following persons:

Yong Tan Huang 

345 N. 5th Street 

San Jose, CA 95112 

Case 5:10-cv-01640-JF Document 13 Filed 05/26/10 Page 4 of 4