Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ha v. Does 1 Through 5

United States District Court, N.D. California

December 23, 2014

HUNG HA, Plaintiff,
v.
DOES 1 THROUGH 5, Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Hung Ha ("plaintiff") filed the instant complaint on October 6, 2014, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). On November 13, 2014, the court issued an order noting that plaintiff had been adjudged a vexatious litigant, and conducting a pre-filing review of plaintiff's complaint. The order also constituted review under the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which is applicable to cases in which plaintiff has claimed IFP status.

In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may dismiss a case sua sponte if the court determines that the party applying for in forma pauperis status has filed a frivolous action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a frivolous claim is one that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). Dismissal on these grounds is often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Id., 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S.Ct. at 1831. Where a litigant is acting pro se and the court finds the litigant's complaint frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must give the litigant notice of the deficiencies of the complaint and an opportunity to amend before final dismissal, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1135-37 (9th Cir. 1987).

The court dismissed plaintiff's complaint, provided notice of the deficiencies of the complaint, and gave plaintiff until December 11, 2014 to file an amended complaint curing those deficiencies. Specifically, the court noted that "[p]laintiff does not explain how the alleged facts relate to the asserted causes of action, and instead, simply lists the various asserted causes of action in a bulleted format, " and thus, had "fail[ed] to provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief' for each of his claims." Dkt. 2 at 3. The court informed plaintiff that "[i]n order to avoid dismissal, [he] must clearly set forth the specific causes of action that are asserted, and must demonstrate how the alleged facts satisfy each element of each asserted cause of action." Id.

The court further noted that the complaint did not plead the dates on which the subject incident occurred, but did make an argument regarding equitable tolling. Because the court could not determine whether plaintiff's claims were time-barred, it could not determine whether the complaint had any "arguable basis in either law or fact" under section 1915. In sum, the court made clear that "any amended complaint must demonstrate how the alleged facts correspond to each asserted cause of action, and must provide the date(s) on which the alleged incident took place." Dkt. 2 at 4.

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and instead has made the following filings: (1) a letter regarding the court's refusal to accept plaintiff's filing fee, (2) a motion for reconsideration of the court's dismissal order, (3) an application for leave to e-file, (4) a "statement of disqualification" regarding the undersigned, (5) an application for leave to submit a motion to require defendants to represent themselves, without counsel, (6) a second application for leave to e-file, (7) an application to extend the deadline to file an amended complaint, and (8) a letter regarding plaintiff's attempt to comply with the court's order.

As an initial matter, the court construes plaintiff's "statement of disqualification" as a motion for recusal. The general rule in federal court is that a judge should handle the cases assigned to him or her unless a legitimate reason for recusal exists. See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008). Legitimate reasons for recusal are outlined in two statutes - 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 and 144 - and in § 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

Section 144 provides, in relevant part:

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files 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, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists....

28 U.S.C. § 144. If a judge finds a § 144 motion timely and the affidavit legally sufficient, the judge must proceed no further and another judge must be assigned to hear the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 144; U.S. v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980).

Section 455 provides in relevant part:

(a) Any... judge... shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.