Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03979/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03979-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohammad Haider Agha Hasan
Plaintiff
Jeffrey S White
Defendant

Document Text:

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

MOHAMMAD HAIDER AGHA HASAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY S WHITE,

Defendant.

MOHAMMAD HAIDER AGHA HASAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY S WHITE,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03979-JST

ORDER GRANTING IFP 

APPLICATIONS AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINTS

Re: ECF Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8

 Case No. 19-cv-04036-JST

 Re: ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6

Before the Court are numerous motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Mohammad Haider Agha 

Hasan in two related cases.1 In case number 19-cv-03979-JST, Hasan has filed a motion for 

preliminary injunction, ECF No. 2, motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, 

motion for permission for electronic case filing, ECF No. 5, and a motion seeking to disqualify the 

undersigned judge, ECF No. 8. Hasan has filed similar motions in the second case. See No. 19-

cv-04036-JST, ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6. The Court will deny the motions to disqualify, grant the 

motions to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

 

1 Case Number Case No. 19-cv-04036-JST was initially assigned to Judge William Orrick, who 

sua sponte referred the case to the undersigned judge for a determination whether the cases were 

related. No. 19-cv-04036, ECF No. 10. The undersigned issued an order relating the two cases. 

Id., ECF No. 11. 

Case 3:19-cv-03979-JST Document 13 Filed 08/05/19 Page 1 of 5
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

I. MOTIONS TO DISQUALIFY

Motions to disqualify a judge fall under two statutory provisions: 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 

U.S.C. § 455. “Section 144 provides a procedure for a party to recuse a judge,” whereas “[s]ection 

455 imposes an affirmative duty upon judges to recuse themselves.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 

F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Under section 144, a party seeking recusal must file a timely and sufficient affidavit 

averring that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either 

against the party or in favor of an adverse party, and setting forth the facts and reasons for such 

belief. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. If the affidavit is legally sufficient – i.e., it “state[s] the facts and the 

reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists,” 28 U.S.C. § 144, – the judge at whom the 

motion is directed must refer the motion to another judge for a determination of its merits. United 

States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867-68 (9th Cir. 1980). Where the affidavit is not legally sufficient, 

however, the judge at whom the motion is directed may determine the matter. Id.

Section 455 requires a judge to disqualify himself “in any proceeding in which his 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), including where the judge “has 

a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” id. § 455(b)(1). Unlike section 144, section 455 

is “directed to the judge, rather than the parties, and is self-enforcing on the part of the judge.” 

Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867-68. Section 455 does not provide a procedural mechanism to refer the 

recusal question to another judge. Id. 

The substantive test for personal bias or prejudice is identical under section 144 and 

section 455. Id. “Under both statutes, recusal is appropriate where a reasonable person with 

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned.” Yagman, 987 F.2d at 626 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Consequently, an affidavit filed under section 144 will raise a question concerning recusal under 

section 455 as well. Sibla, 642 F.2d at 867. 

Although Hasan references only section 455 in his motions, the Court construes them as 

motions brought under section 144, thus triggering an analysis under both statutory provisions. 

Case 3:19-cv-03979-JST Document 13 Filed 08/05/19 Page 2 of 5
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

No. 19-cv-03979-JST, ECF No. 8.2 The Court does so for two reasons. First, as explained above, 

section 455 requires a judge to recuse himself on his own initiative and, therefore, does not require 

a motion. As a party seeking the judge’s recusal, Hasan must use the procedure laid out in section 

144. Second, section 144 provides for an additional procedural safeguard that is not available 

under section 455: referral to a second judge to decide the recusal question. In light of Hasan’s 

pro se status, the Court construes the recusal motions as brought under section 144.

However, even construing Hasan’s motions as the affidavits required by section 144, they

fail to establish any basis, under either section 144 or section 455, for a determination that the 

Court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned herein, and consequently are insufficient as a 

matter of law. Hasan does not proffer any “facts” or “reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice 

exists,” 28 U.S.C. § 144, but instead asks the Court to consider whether such facts or reasons exist,

No. 19-cv-03979-JST, ECF No. 8 at 5, and to disclose any potentially relevant facts in response in 

response to a series of interrogatories, id. at 23. Accordingly, the affidavits are legally insufficient 

and do not require referral to another judge for decision.

Reviewing the motions and the record before the Court, it discerns no grounds for recusal 

under either section 144 or section 455. The Court therefore DENIES the motions for recusal and 

proceeds to decide the remaining motions in these cases.

II. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without 

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable 

to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Here, Hasan has submitted the required documentation, and it is evident from his

application that his assets and income are insufficient to enable him to pay the filing fees. 

Accordingly, Hasan’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. No. 19-cv-03979-

JST, ECF No. 3; No. 19-cv-04036-JST, ECF No. 4.

 

2 Because Hasan’s second motion to disqualify is substantively identical, the Court cites to first 

motion only. Compare no. 19-cv-04036-JST, ECF No. 3.

Case 3:19-cv-03979-JST Document 13 Filed 08/05/19 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. DISMISSAL

A court is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case whenever it determines that the action 

“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) 

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B). “[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in 

forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (en banc).

In his first case, Hasan asks the Court to stay two actions currently pending before Judge 

Jeffrey White of this district. ECF No. 1 at 8; see also In re Hasan, No. 18-cv-05806-JSW (N.D. 

Cal.); Hasan v. California, No. 18-mc-80163-JSW (N.D. Cal.). Hasan further requests that the 

Court order the two cases transferred to another judge; in effect, to disqualify Judge White. ECF 

No. 1 at 8. Finally, Hasan asks the Court to rule on motions currently pending in those cases. Id.

The Court lacks the authority to grant the request relief. The Court cannot stay actions 

before another judge, nor rule on motions pending in another judge’s case. 

Hasan’s request to disqualify Judge White is also not properly before this Court. As 

detailed above, a party may seek a judge’s recusal in a case by filing a timely and sufficient 

affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 in that case. It appears that Hasan has already filed a request 

in his case before Judge White, In re Hasan, No. 18-cv-05806-JSW, ECF No. 12, which was 

denied, id., ECF No. 20. Any relief from that decision must come from a higher court. See, e.g., 

Yagman, 987 F.2d at 626-27 (affirming denial of motion to recuse).

Accordingly, Hasan’s complaint in case number 19-cv-03979-JST is DISMISSED. The 

Court DENIES Hasan’s motion for a preliminary injunction, id., ECF No. 2, and motion for 

permission for electronic case filing, id., ECF No. 5, as moot. 

In his second case, Hasan raises similar claims based on Judge White’s adjudication of the 

two pending actions. No. 19-cv-04036-JST, ECF No. 1 at 3-9. Based on these claims, Hasan 

seeks $10 million in damages. Id. at 10. 

Judge White is immune from suit on these claims for money damages. See Mireles v. 

Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-12 (1991) (per curiam). And, as explained above, Hasan has identified no 

Case 3:19-cv-03979-JST Document 13 Filed 08/05/19 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

non-monetary relief that the Court could permissibly issue on these claims.

Accordingly, Hasan’s complaint in case number 19-cv-4036-JST is DISMISSED. The 

Court DENIES Hasan’s motion for a preliminary injunction, id., ECF No. 2, and motion for 

permission for electronic case filing, id., ECF No. 6, as moot. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses without prejudice Hasan’s complaints in the 

two above-captioned actions.

Hasan may file an amended complaint in either or both actions, not later than thirty days 

from the date of this order which corrects the deficiencies addressed in this order. Failure to do so, 

or failure to otherwise comply with this order, will result in dismissal with prejudice pursuant to 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which means that Hasan will not be allowed to 

pursue this claim any further.

Hasan may wish to consult the resources for pro se litigants on the Court’s website, 

https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se. These materials include the manual, “Representing Yourself in 

Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants,” which can be downloaded at 

https://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbook or obtained free of charge from the Clerk’s office.

Hasan may also wish to seek assistance from the free Legal Help Center operated by the 

Bar Association of San Francisco. The Legal Help Center has two locations: 450 Golden Gate 

Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, California, and 1301 Clay Street, 4th Floor, 

Room 470S, Oakland, California. Assistance is provided at both offices by appointment only.

Litigants may schedule an appointment by signing up in the appointment book located on the table 

outside the door of the Center at either location, or by calling the Legal Help Center appointment 

line at (415) 782-8982.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03979-JST Document 13 Filed 08/05/19 Page 5 of 5