Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara

Opinion

1 5 6 KUANG-BAO P., OU- YOUNG, Case No. 21-cv-07361-BLF 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 8 Vv. FOURTH MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., [Re: ECF 61] 10 Defendants. 11 12 This order addresses Plaintiff Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young’s fourth motion to disqualify 13 || CECF 61) filed in this closed case. Plaintiff’s three prior motions were referred to other district 14 || judges for disposition were denied. See ECF 40, 59. Judge William H. Orrick’s order dated 3 15 || August 18, 2022 concluded with the following paragraph: A 16 This case is closed. Judgment has been entered. Nothing is left to be resolved by Judge Freeman — or any other district court judge — with respect to the allegations that plaintiff raised in this case. The Clerk is directed to not accept for filing any 8 further motions to disqualify in this closed case.

19 |} ECF 59. Plaintiff nonetheless has filed a fourth motion to disqualify, which is substantially 20 || similar to his first three motions. For the reasons stated in the orders denying Plaintiffs prior 21 || motions to disqualify, and based on Judge Orrick’s order that no further motion to disqualify may 22 || be filed in this closed case, Plaintiff's fourth motion to disqualify is DENIED as frivolous. See 23 Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1387-88 (9th Cir. 1988) (a district judge may 24 || deny a legally insufficient motion to disqualify without referring it to another district judge). 26 Dated: September 6, 2022 han kom Ly amen) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge