1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LINDA ANN WRIGHT, Case No. 14-cv-03008-CRB

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 10 v. DISQUALIFY

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 On June 24, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Linda Ann Wright’s Complaint and 14 entered judgment in favor of Defendants. See Order Dismissing Case (dkt. 184); 15 Judgment (dkt. 185). On December 17, 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, explaining that 16 Wright’s amended complaint was “largely unintelligible” and lacked “factual specificity.” 17 See Order of USCA (dkt. 90) at 1. On January 14, 2021, more than five years after the 18 Court of Appeals issued its mandate, Wright moved to reopen her case under Rule 60 of 19 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mot. to Reopen (dkt. 193). The Court denied 20 Wright’s motion because it was untimely and provided no basis for the Court to conclude 21 that the Court’s judgment was void. See Order Denying First Mot. to Reopen (dkt. 195) at 22 1–2. On February 4, 2021, Wright moved to reopen her case again. See Second Mot. to 23 Reopen (dkt. 197). The Court denied Wright’s second motion to reopen because it did 24 “not materially differ” from her first. See Order Denying Second Mot. to Reopen (dkt. 25 198). The Court also warned Wright that “repeated frivolous filings can give rise to 26 sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. 27 Wright has now moved to disqualify the undersigned. See Mot. to Disqualify (dkt. 1 characterization of her claims as unintelligible. Id. at 2–3. She then suggests, without 2 elaboration, that one of her recent repeated filings resulted from a “Clerical Error.” Id. at 3 4. In response to the Court’s warning regarding sanctions, Wright has this to say: “I do not 4 take kindly to threats. I have Never been frivolous in any Court, ever.” Id. (emphasis in 5 original). Wright goes on to clarify that other federal judges have discussed her frivolous 6 court filings, but that those judges “were illegally dismissing cases.” Id. Wright concludes 7 by stating that the undersigned should recuse himself because throughout this litigation, 8 “[t]here was an [u]mbrella to protect lawlessness and criminality against [Wright], and her 9 family.” Id. at 5. 10 A party to a proceeding in district court may “make[ ] and file[ ] a timely and 11 sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or 12 prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party.”

. Judges 13 also have an affirmative duty to “disqualify [themselves] in any proceeding in which 14 [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

. Under both § 144 15 and § 455, disqualification is appropriate if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the 16 facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 17 Yagman v. Republic Ins.,

(9th Cir. 1993) (citing In re Yagman, 796

, 1179 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Accordingly, recusal will be justified either by actual 19 bias or the appearance of bias.”

Under Civil Local Rule 3-14, “[w]henever an affidavit 20 of bias or prejudice directed at a Judge of this Court is filed pursuant to

, 21 and the Judge has determined not to recuse him or herself and found that the affidavit is 22 neither legally insufficient nor interposed for delay, the Judge shall refer the request for 23 disqualification to the Clerk for random assignment to another Judge.” 24 Here, Wright’s grievances with the Court do not justify recusal. Wright is upset 25 because her lawsuit was unsuccessful and there is no legal basis to reopen it. Her 26 frustration goes beyond proceedings in this case to other cases, not before the undersigned, 27 with similarly fruitless results. Of course, merits rulings in this and other cases do not give 1 || 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 4 || warned Wright about future frivolous filings. The Court issued this warning, in part, to aid 5 || Wright. It is not in her interest to continue filing motions with no arguable legal basis in 6 || this case, which concluded over five years ago. When a case is over, it’s over, subject to 7 || 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 9 || another frivolous motion. Worse, Wright’s statement that she does “not take kindly to 10 || threats” is both inappropriately threatening and an admission that future warnings will not 11 || keep her from filing similarly baseless motions. The Court nonetheless declines to 12 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 5 14 || case, the Court will sanction her. 8 15 IT ISSO ORDERED. iE A 16 Dated: March 8, 2021 CHARLES R. BREYER 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28