Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03071/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03071-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:2651 Medical Care Recovery

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KENNETH L. CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03071-BLF 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S “NOTICE OF 

OBJECTION AND REQUEST TO 

VACATE UNLAWFUL ORDERS”

Plaintiff Kenneth L. Campbell, proceeding pro se, filed this action against President 

Barack Obama and others on July 7, 2014. The case initially was assigned to Magistrate Judge 

Paul S. Grewal, and Plaintiff consented to proceed before Judge Grewal. See Consent to 

Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, ECF 4. Judge Grewal presided over the case for approximately one 

year until August 26, 2015, when he issued an Order of Recusal directing that the case be 

reassigned. See Order of Recusal, ECF 113. The Case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge 

Nathanael M. Cousins on August 27, 2015, and Judge Cousins filed an Order of Recusal the same 

day. See Order of Recusal, ECF 115. The case then was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Howard 

R. Lloyd. See Order Reassigning Case, ECF 116. Judge Lloyd filed an Order of Recusal on 

August 31, 2015, see Order of Recusal, ECF 117, and the case was reassigned to the undersigned 

on September 1, 2015. See Order Reassigning Case, ECF 118.

On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Objection and Request to Vacate 

Unlawful Orders.” See Pl.’s Notice of Objection, ECF 120. Plaintiff asserts that, “excluding the 

Order granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, all magistrate orders made and entered 

herein should be vacated, and the case should in the public interest be referred to the Grand Jury 

(Rule 6, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc).” Id. at 3. As an initial matter, the rule cited by Plaintiff, 

Case 5:14-cv-03071-BLF Document 122 Filed 09/08/15 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

governing the summoning of a grand jury in criminal cases, has no application to this civil case. 

To the extent that Plaintiff objects generally to assignment of the case to a magistrate judge, 

Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction and when he later attempted to withdraw that 

consent he failed to establish the required extraordinary circumstances. See Order Re: Consent to 

Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, ECF 62. The record does not suggest any basis to question Judge 

Grewal’s jurisdiction until August 24, 2015, the date upon which Plaintiff filed a “Proposed 

Amendment to Complaint” naming Judge Grewal as a defendant. See Proposed Amendment to 

Complaint, ECF 111. Judge Grewal recused himself two days later on August 26, 2015 and he did 

not issue any orders between the date the Proposed Amendment to Complaint was filed and the 

date of his recusal. See Order of Recusal, ECF 113. 

To the extent that Plaintiff objects to any specific rulings by Judge Grewal, Plaintiff points 

to only one, Judge Grewal’s ruling on Defendants’ administrative motion for an order setting a 

deadline for amendment of the complaint. See Order Granting Motion for Administrative Relief, 

ECF 109. Plaintiff asserts that Judge Grewal granted that administrative motion without giving 

Plaintiff an opportunity to respond. See Pl.’s Notice of Objection at 3, ECF 120. However, 

Plaintiff does not identify any prejudice resulting from Judge Grewal’s ruling. Judge Grewal 

granted Plaintiff seven days to file an amended pleading, see Order Granting Motion for 

Administrative Relief, ECF 109; Plaintiff filed the Proposed Amendment to Complaint within that 

deadline, see Proposed Amendment to Complaint, ECF 111; and Plaintiff in fact joined in the 

administrative motion in conjunction with filing the Proposed Amendment to Complaint, see

Joinder, ECF 112. The undersigned subsequently struck Plaintiff’s Proposed Amendment to 

Complaint and granted Plaintiff an additional twenty-one days, until September 24, 2015, to file 

an amended pleading. See Order Striking Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint, ECF 119.

Plaintiff also requests injunctive relief restraining enforcement of “the 100 day 

hospitalization” rule, restraining unlawful detainer proceedings against him, and directing medical 

doctors to medically assist him to commit suicide. See Pl.’s Notice of Objection at 4-5, ECF 120. 

At this time, Plaintiff has no operative pleading on file. Thus he cannot demonstrate a likelihood 

of success on the merits as required for injunctive relief. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 

Case 5:14-cv-03071-BLF Document 122 Filed 09/08/15 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

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 

1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to vacate Judge Grewal’s orders, and for the other relief 

requested, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03071-BLF Document 122 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 3