Wright v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDA ANN WRIGHT, Case No. 14-cv-03008-CRB

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. DISQUALIFY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

On June 24, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Linda Ann Wright’s Complaint and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. See Order Dismissing Case (dkt. 184); Judgment (dkt. 185). On December 17, 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, explaining that Wright’s amended complaint was “largely unintelligible” and lacked “factual specificity.” See Order of USCA (dkt. 90) at 1. On January 14, 2021, more than five years after the Court of Appeals issued its mandate, Wright moved to reopen her case under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mot. to Reopen (dkt. 193). The Court denied Wright’s motion because it was untimely and provided no basis for the Court to conclude that the Court’s judgment was void. See Order Denying First Mot. to Reopen (dkt. 195) at 1–2. On February 4, 2021, Wright moved to reopen her case again. See Second Mot. to Reopen (dkt. 197). The Court denied Wright’s second motion to reopen because it did “not materially differ” from her first. See Order Denying Second Mot. to Reopen (dkt. 198). The Court also warned Wright that “repeated frivolous filings can give rise to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. Wright has now moved to disqualify the undersigned. See Mot. to Disqualify (dkt. characterization of her claims as unintelligible. Id. at 2–3. She then suggests, without elaboration, that one of her recent repeated filings resulted from a “Clerical Error.” Id. at 4. In response to the Court’s warning regarding sanctions, Wright has this to say: “I do not take kindly to threats. I have Never been frivolous in any Court, ever.” Id. (emphasis in original). Wright goes on to clarify that other federal judges have discussed her frivolous court filings, but that those judges “were illegally dismissing cases.” Id. Wright concludes by stating that the undersigned should recuse himself because throughout this litigation, “[t]here was an [u]mbrella to protect lawlessness and criminality against [Wright], and her family.” Id. at 5.

A party to a proceeding in district court may “make[ ] and file[ ] a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party.” 28 U.S.C. § 144. Judges also have an affirmative duty to “disqualify [themselves] in any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455. Under both § 144 and § 455, disqualification is appropriate if “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) (citing In re Yagman, 796 18 F.2d 1165, 1179 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Accordingly, recusal will be justified either by actual bias or the appearance of bias.” Id. Under Civil Local Rule 3-14, “[w]henever 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 insufficient nor interposed for delay, the Judge shall refer the request for disqualification to the Clerk for random assignment to another Judge.”

Here, Wright’s grievances with the Court do not justify recusal. Wright is upset because her lawsuit was unsuccessful and there is no legal basis to reopen it. Her frustration goes beyond proceedings in this case to other cases, not before the undersigned, with similarly fruitless results. Of course, merits rulings in this and other cases do not give || the undersigned is personally biased or hostile towards Wright. Because Wright’s motion 2 is legally insufficient, the undersigned need not refer Wright’s request to the Clerk. 3 In its previous order, the Court did not purport to sanction Wright—it merely || warned Wright about future frivolous filings. The Court issued this warning, in part, to aid || Wright. It is not in her interest to continue filing motions with no arguable legal basis in || this case, which concluded over five years ago. When a case is over, it’s over, subject to || the narrow exceptions enumerated in Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8 Unfortunately, Wright did not heed the Court’s warning. Instead, she filed yet || another frivolous motion. Worse, Wright’s statement that she does “not take kindly to threats” is both inappropriately threatening and an admission that future warnings will not keep her from filing similarly baseless motions. The Court nonetheless declines to sanction Wright at this time. In lieu of further warnings, the Court simply instructs Wright E 13 || that should she file another motion without arguable basis in law or fact in this long-closed || case, the Court will sanction her.

15 IT ISSO ORDERED. iE

A 16 Dated: March 8, 2021

CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge