Kelly v. Cubesmart

N.D. California

Kelly v. Cubesmart

DecidedJanuary 27, 2023

Docket4:22-cv-05470

StatusUnknown

This text of Kelly v. Cubesmart (Kelly v. Cubesmart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelly v. Cubesmart, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYNTHIA RENEE KELLY, Case No. 22-cv-05470-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO REASSIGN CASE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 51 10 CUBESMART, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, responded to the Court’s order at Dkt. No. 46 and requested 14 that the case be reassigned to another judge in the Northern District of California. See Dkt. No. 15 51. The Court DENIES the request. 16 “[I]n the absence of a legitimate reason to recuse himself, a judge should participate in 17 cases assigned.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff asserts, 18 based entirely on the Court’s legal rulings, that the undersigned “inflict[ed] extreme prejudice with 19 the ‘intent to cause harm’” and “violat[ed] Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Dkt. No. 51 at 1. 20 Judicial rulings absolutely may be raised in any eventual appeal, but are not a valid basis for a 21 motion for recusal. See Holland, 519 F.3d at 913–14 (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 22 555–56 (1994)); see also Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A judge’s 23 previous adverse ruling alone is not sufficient bias.”); McCoy v. Stronach, No. 24 112CV000983AWISABPC, 2021 WL 147989, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) (denying 25 plaintiff’s motion for disqualification based on adverse ruling on motion). 26 The Court has not yet issued a ruling on the two pending motions to dismiss, or issued any 27 substantive orders of any kind in this case. See Dkt. Nos. 27, 33. The Court emphasizes that 1 dismiss at Dkt. No. 33. As the Court explained in its text order on January 19, 2023, Plaintiff has 2 || until February 2, 2023. See Dkt. No. 46. The Court encourages Plaintiff to file an opposition that 3 responds to the substance of Defendants’ motion. If Plaintiff does not file an opposition, the Court 4 || will construe this filing, Dkt. No 51, as her opposition. As before, Defendants may file a reply by 5 February 9, 2023. 6 The Court advises Plaintiff that the Legal Help Center provides free information and 7 limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in civil cases. The center can provide information, 8 advice, and basic legal help but cannot represent litigants as their lawyer. Services are provided g || by appointment only. An appointment may be scheduled by calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing 10 || fedpro@sfbar.org. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. zs 12 Dated: 1/27/2023

: HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge © 15 16

= 17

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYNTHIA RENEE KELLY, Case No. 22-cv-05470-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO REASSIGN CASE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 51 10 CUBESMART, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, responded to the Court’s order at Dkt. No. 46 and requested 14 that the case be reassigned to another judge in the Northern District of California. See Dkt. No. 15 51. The Court DENIES the request. 16 “[I]n the absence of a legitimate reason to recuse himself, a judge should participate in 17 cases assigned.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff asserts, 18 based entirely on the Court’s legal rulings, that the undersigned “inflict[ed] extreme prejudice with 19 the ‘intent to cause harm’” and “violat[ed] Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Dkt. No. 51 at 1. 20 Judicial rulings absolutely may be raised in any eventual appeal, but are not a valid basis for a 21 motion for recusal. See Holland, 519 F.3d at 913–14 (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 22 555–56 (1994)); see also Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A judge’s 23 previous adverse ruling alone is not sufficient bias.”); McCoy v. Stronach, No. 24 112CV000983AWISABPC, 2021 WL 147989, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) (denying 25 plaintiff’s motion for disqualification based on adverse ruling on motion). 26 The Court has not yet issued a ruling on the two pending motions to dismiss, or issued any 27 substantive orders of any kind in this case. See Dkt. Nos. 27, 33. The Court emphasizes that 1 dismiss at Dkt. No. 33. As the Court explained in its text order on January 19, 2023, Plaintiff has 2 || until February 2, 2023. See Dkt. No. 46. The Court encourages Plaintiff to file an opposition that 3 responds to the substance of Defendants’ motion. If Plaintiff does not file an opposition, the Court 4 || will construe this filing, Dkt. No 51, as her opposition. As before, Defendants may file a reply by 5 February 9, 2023. 6 The Court advises Plaintiff that the Legal Help Center provides free information and 7 limited-scope legal advice to pro se litigants in civil cases. The center can provide information, 8 advice, and basic legal help but cannot represent litigants as their lawyer. Services are provided g || by appointment only. An appointment may be scheduled by calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing 10 || fedpro@sfbar.org. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. zs 12 Dated: 1/27/2023

= 17

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kelly v. Cubesmart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-cubesmart-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack