Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYRUS HAZARI, Case No. 21-cv-04262-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SHORTENED TIME – DENYING 9 v. MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND COUNTY, et al., FOR DISQUALIFICATION 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 145 12 13 This matter comes to the Court upon consideration of the motion to shorten time, the 14 motions for a temporary restraining order, and the motion for a preliminary injunction and 15 disqualification, filed by Plaintiff Cyrus Hazari (“Mr. Hazari”).1 In light of impending deadlines 16 in this case, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion to shorten time. Mr. Hazari has been 17 diagnosed with M.S., and he has asked the Court for repeated stays until his illness permits him to 18 fully participate in litigation. 19 In his request for a temporary restraining order, Mr. Hazari argues that this Court should be 20 enjoined from taking any further action in this case. Mr. Hazari previously moved the Court to 21 recuse itself. 22 Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the 23 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 24 therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. 25 26

27 1 Mr. Hazari’s motion for a preliminary injunction includes a series of statements and invites the Court to respond “true” or “false” to those statements. The Court declines Mr. Hazari’s 1 The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days 2 before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such 3 time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is 4 made in good faith. 5 28 U.S.C. § 144. 6 Pursuant to Section 144, the judge assigned to the case may pass on the legal sufficiency of 7 the motion and only after legal sufficiency is established does it become the duty of that judge to 8 proceed no further. See United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978). The inquiry 9 is addressed to the facial sufficiency of the affidavit and not to the truth or falsity of the facts 10 therein. See United States v. Montecalvo, 545 F.2d 684, 685 (9th Cir. 1976). The Court once 11 again concludes that Mr. Hazari has not demonstrated that recusal is warranted under Section 144. 12 The Court also considered 28 U.S.C. section 455, which provides that a judge “shall 13 disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 14 Section 455 imposes an affirmative duty upon judges to recuse themselves when “a reasonable 15 person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might 16 reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). The 17 provisions of Section 455 “require recusal only if the bias or prejudice stem from an extrajudicial 18 source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.” Toth v. Trans 19 World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988). Once again, Mr. Hazari’s challenges to 20 the undersigned presiding over this case is not based on an extrajudicial source. Therefore, 21 Section 455 does not provide a basis for recusal. 22 Mr. Hazari filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2024, and the Court gave him until 23 October 31, 2024 to obtain proposed summonses and serve the Defendants. To the extent Mr. 24 Hazari’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seek relief from that 25 deadline, the Court DENIES that request. 26 The Court’s deadline of October 31, 2024 to obtain summonses and serve the Defendants 27 remains in place. If Mr. Hazari fails to comply with that deadline, the Court will dismiss this case, ] and Mr. Hazari may seek appellate relief of the Court’s Orders. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. a} 3 || Dated: October 11, 2024 f | / 4 LAF JEEFREY $8. WHIT. 5 /Opited Fakes Distaict Judge

7 8 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28