Shek v. Children Hospital Research Center in Oakland et al

Filing 102

ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup denying 93 Motion to Amend/Correct ; ; denying 94 Motion to Stay; denying 97 Motion to Amend/Correct ; ; denying 98 Motion for Leave to File (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JOHN SHEK,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

No. C 13-02017 WHA
Plaintiff,

v.
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL & RESEARCH
CENTER OF OAKLAND, et al.,

ORDER DENYING
PENDING MOTIONS AND
VACATING HEARING

Defendants.
/

16
17

An August 26 order dismissed this action in its entirety on the ground of res judicata

18

(Dkt. No. 90). Since then, pro se plaintiff John Shek has filed a motion for reconsideration, a

19

motion for relief from judgement under Rule 60, a motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59,

20

and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. Nos. 93–94, 97–98). Although the

21

motions are voluminous and largely incomprehensible, Mr. Shek’s basic points are that 1) the

22

related 12-4517 action was not resolved on the merits, 2) “[t]here is reason to doubt the quality,

23

extensiveness or fairness of procedures in . . . [the 12-4517] litigation,” and 3) Mr. Shek believes

24

he should win on the merits. As to the first point, Mr. Shek is incorrect. His claims for relief in

25

the 12-4517 were dismissed on multiple merits grounds, including applicable statutes of

26

limitations, failure to state a claim, and preemption. Shek v. Children’s Hosp. Research Ctr. of

27

Oakland, No. C. 12-4517 WHA, 2012 WL 6001097, at *2–5 (N.D. Cal. November 30, 2012).

28

As to the second point, Mr. Shek does not provide any cognizable basis for questioning the
procedures used in the 12-4517 action and his pending appeal of that action is irrelevant. As for

1

the third point, Mr. Shek’s belief that he has amassed “sufficient evidence[]” of discrimination

2

neither changes the disposition of the 12-4517 action nor prevents the application of res judicata

3

in this action. Accordingly, Mr. Shek’s various motions seeking reconsideration of the judgment

4

in this action are DENIED. The October 17 hearing on these motions is VACATED.

5

Mr. Shek has also filed a separate motion for reconsideration of an order denying him in

6

forma pauperis status on appeal. Earlier in this action, Mr. Shek moved to disqualify the

7

undersigned judge. The disqualification motion was decided by Judge Edward Chen, who

8

concluded that Mr. Shek’s objections were baseless. The order denying Mr. Shek in forma

9

pauperis status on appeal held that his appeal of the disqualification order appeared to be
frivolous (Dkt. No. 66 at 2). Mr. Shek now moves for reconsideration on the ground that he

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

cannot afford to pay the filing fee for his appeal. Mr. Shek does not, however, provide any

12

reason to question the conclusion that his appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, there is no basis for

13

reconsideration and the motion is DENIED.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: September 25, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2