1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LEE A STRICKLIN, et al., Case No. 23-cv-04870-MMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTIONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION AND FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 J H GLAZER, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 By order filed January 4, 2024, the Court granted defendants' respective motions 14 to dismiss the Complaint in the above-titled action and afforded plaintiff Alivia J. Stricklin 15 ("Stricklin"), who proceeds pro se, leave to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") no 16 later than February 2, 2024. By order filed February 7, 2024, the Court dismissed the 17 instant action, as Strickland had not filed an FAC. 18 The Court is now in receipt of the following documents, each filed by Stricklin on 19 March 28, 2024: (1) "Chief Justice San Francisco Notice of Motion and Motion for 20 Disqualification of Subject Justice 28 U.S.C. Statute 455" ("Motion for Disqualification"); 21 (2) "Plaintiff's Appeal Brief Opposition to Dismiss, Amendment, and Case Management 22 FRCP 16 & 26" ("Opposition Brief"); and (3) "Plaintiff's Joint Case Management 23 Statement & [Proposed] Order" ("Case Management Statement"). The Court, having 24 read and considered the above-referenced filings, hereby rules as follows. 25 First, in her motion for disqualification, Stricklin expresses dissatisfaction with the 26 order granting defendants' motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court has made clear, 27 however, that "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or 1 favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved." See 2 Liteky v. United States,

(1994) (finding, where motion to disqualify 3 || was based on judge’s rulings and comments during court proceedings, "[nJone of the 4 || grounds petitioners assert[ed] required disqualification"). The "recusal statute ‘was never 5 || intended to enable a discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings,” 6 || see Liteky,

(quoting Ex Parte American Steel Barrel Co.,

at 7 || 44 (1913)), and, here, Stricklin's motion does no more than set forth her disagreement 8 || with an adverse ruling. 9 Accordingly, the motion for disqualification is hereby DENIED. 10 Next, in her Opposition Brief, which filing the Court construes as a motion for 11 reconsideration of the order dismissing the Complaint, Stricklin primarily sets forth g 12 || assertions of law, several of which are inapplicable to her claims and/or to the arguments 13 || made in defendants’ motions to dismiss. In any event, Stricklin does not set forth in her 14 || filing any cognizable basis for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (providing 2 15 |) grounds on which motion for reconsideration can be based). a 16 Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. g 17 Lastly, the Court takes no action with respect to the Case Management Statement, 18 || as the Case Management Conference, which had been scheduled for April 5, 2024, has 19 || been vacated in light of the dismissal of the instant action. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: April 2, 2024 berber □□□□□□ INE M. CHESNEY 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28