Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00262/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00262-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RECUSAL REQUEST; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL

TIME TO FILE A REPLY—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG

E-filed on 5/19/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

REHAN SHEIKH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., and DOES 1 through

20, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. C-07-00262 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RECUSAL

REQUEST; ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL

TIME TO FILE A REPLY

[Docket Nos. 56, 57]

On May 19, 2008, the court issued an order regarding plaintiff's request for accommodations

regarding his asserted disabilities. Later the same day, the court received two motions, filed by

plaintiff on May 16, 2008: (1) a motion for recusal and (2) a motion requesting more time to file a

reply in plaintiff's motion to remand. The court addresses these motions below.

A. Request for Recusal

The first motion asks the undersigned to recuse or withdraw himself from this case because

the court has not "timely addressed" his requests for accommodation, and because the court has not

taken action to prevent defendants from opposing plaintiff's purported "constitutional rights for an

attorney." See Docket No. 56. 

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 59 Filed 05/19/08 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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RECUSAL REQUEST; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL

TIME TO FILE A REPLY—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG 2

The court denies plaintiff's request that this court either recuse or withdraw. Recusal is

appropriate only where a "reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the

judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626

(9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Plaintiff sets forth no such facts. 

First, the court has ruled on plaintiff's requests for accommodation. As noted above, the

court issued an order on plaintiff's requests for accommodations on May 19, 2008. That order set

forth the time and procedure for plaintiff to attend the May 23, 2008 hearing on his motion to

remand to state court, granted his request to continue Cisco's motion to compel arbitration, granted

his request to consider evidence submitted in support of prior motions, and denied his request for

counsel and special assistance from the court in scheduling and formulating motions. To the extent

that plaintiff disagrees with the court's rulings, plaintiff should note that adverse rulings are not an

adequate basis for recusal. Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Second, plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to an attorney in a civil action such as

this one and the court is under no obligation to appoint counsel. There is no constitutional right to

counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the

litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981); Rand v. Rowland, 113

F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (no constitutional right to counsel in § 1983 action), withdrawn in

part on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff's civil

action does not involve incarceration or other form of restraint of his physical liberty. While the

court may request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the decision to

do so is within "the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional

circumstances." Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). This case does not

present the requisite "exceptional circumstances."

B. Request for Extra Time to File a Reply Brief for Plaintiff's Motion to Remand

As noted above, the court's May 19, 2008 order regarding plaintiff's request for

accommodation continued the due date for plaintiff's opposition to Cisco's motion to compel

arbitration until 30 days after the court's ruling on plaintiff's motion to remand this action to the state

court. Plaintiff's motion to remand is currently set for hearing this coming Friday, May 23, 2008,

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 59 Filed 05/19/08 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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RECUSAL REQUEST; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL

TIME TO FILE A REPLY—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG 3

and reply papers would have been due on May 9, 2008. Plaintiff has not yet filed a reply. Although

plaintiff's request for accommodation did not originally ask for additional time to file a reply for his

motion to remand, plaintiff now seeks an additional 20 days to file a reply in his "Motion for Extra

Time For Plaintiff's Reply Brief on Second Motion to Remand to State Court." See Docket No. 57.

Plaintiff claims to have cognitive impairment and memory problems. As a result, he needs

more time than usual to read and to compose his papers. He asked the court to appoint counsel

because of these impairments, but, as discussed above, the court denied the request. However, the

court finds good cause to allow plaintiff additional time to submit reply briefing for his motion to

remand. Accordingly, plaintiff will have until June 13, 2008 to file a reply to his motion to remand. 

Due to the court's availability, the hearing on plaintiff's motion to remand will be continued until

July 18, 2008. As previously set forth in the court's May 19, 2008 Order Continuing Hearing on

Cisco's Motion to Compel Arbitration, the briefing schedule and hearing for defendant's motion to

compel arbitration will be continued to give plaintiff thirty 30 days after the court's ruling on

plaintiff's motion to remand to respond. The schedule will be set in the court's order on plaintiff's

motion to remand. 

ORDER

For the forgoing reasons:

• The court denies plaintiff's request that the undersigned recuse himself from his case.

• The court grants plaintiff's request for more time to file a reply brief regarding his

motion to remand to state court as follows:

• Plaintiff's reply will now be due June 13, 2008. 

• The hearing on plaintiff's motion to remand will be continued to July 18,

2008 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff may appear telephonically by submitting a motion

to appear telephonically telling the court at what number he can be reached.

DATED: 5/19/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 59 Filed 05/19/08 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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RECUSAL REQUEST; ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL

TIME TO FILE A REPLY—No. C-07-00262 RMW

MAG 4

A copy of this order was mailed on 5/19/08 to:

Plaintiff:

Rehan Sheikh

PO Box 869

French Camp, CA 95231-0869

PRO SE

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Plaintiff

Rehan Ayyub Sheikh rehansheikh@yahoo.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Marlene S. Muraco mmuraco@littler.com 

Erica H. Kelley ehermatz@littler.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:07-cv-00262-RMW Document 59 Filed 05/19/08 Page 4 of 4