Ou-Young v. Busby

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-08545
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KUANG-BAO PAUL OU-YOUNG, 7 Case No. 24-cv-08545-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 DISQUALIFY MARK B. BUSBY, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 14 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff has brought an Ex Parte Motion to Disqualify Judge (“Motion”) pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Under that section a judge “shall . . . disqualify [themself] . . . [w]here [they 15 have] a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed 16 evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” In the Motion, Plaintiff asserts that the undersigned 17 is biased because he ordered a competency examination in a prior criminal action, 17-cr-0263- 18 MMC, United States District Court, N.D. Cal. (“Criminal Case”). Plaintiff reasons that because he 19 did not defend on the basis of insanity in that case, the Court’s order for him to undergo a 20 competency examination amounted to a conspiracy with the United States Attorney to deprive him 21 of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. These allegations do not establish bias. 22 In the Criminal Case, Plaintiff’s attorney brought a motion on Plaintiff’s behalf seeking a 23 competency examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241, which the Court granted. Criminal Case, 24 dkt. nos. 15, 30. Section 4241 authorizes the court to order a psychiatric evaluation of a defendant 25 “if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental 26 disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand 27 the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.” 1 competent to stand trial — not to evaluate any defense a defendant may assert in a criminal action 2 || based on their mental state when the crime they are charged with was committed. Therefore, the 3 || Court DENIES the Motion.! 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: February 4, 2025 , J PH C. SPERO 8 nited States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' The Court notes that Plaintiff did not bring this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 144, which provides 24 || that “[w]henever 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 25 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.” Even if he had, the factual 26 || assertions in the Motion on which Plaintiff bases his allegations of bias would not be legally sufficient to establish bias and therefore, the undersigned may properly decide the Motion without 07 referring it to another judge. See Civ.L.R. 3-14; United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980) (“An affidavit filed pursuant to [section 144] is not legally sufficient unless it specifically 28 alleges facts that fairly support the contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice directed toward a party that stems from an extrajudicial source.”).