Shek v. Children Hospital Research Center in Oakland et al

Filing 66

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING MOTION TO VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, AND DENYING IFP STATUS ON APPEAL by Judge Alsup denying 51 Motion to Vacate 25 Renotice motion hearing, 15 MOTION to Dismiss ; denying 60 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; terminating 32 Motion to Stay (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2013)

Shek v. Children Hospital Research Center in Oakland et al

Doc. 66

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

No. C 13-02017 WHA
Plaintiff,

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

15

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON
MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING
MOTION TO VACATE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE,
AND DENYING IFP STATUS ON
APPEAL

/

16
17

In June, defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 15). After the action was

18

reassigned to the undersigned judge in July, defendants properly re-noticed the motion to dismiss

19

for August 22 (Dkt. No. 25). Plaintiff John Shek subsequently filed a motion to disqualify the

20

undersigned judge. The motion to dismiss was stayed pending resolution of the motion to

21

disqualify. Mr. Shek also moved to vacate an August 22 case management conference on the

22

grounds that his motion to disqualify was pending (Dkt. No. 51).

23

The motion to disqualify was assigned to Judge Edward Chen, who denied the motion on

24

August 5 (Dkt. No. 56). On August 6, Mr. Shek filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge

25

Chen’s ruling, and on August 9 Mr. Shek filed a notice of appeal of Judge Chen’s ruling (Dkt.

26

No. 58). On August 12, Judge Chen denied the motion for reconsideration because it lacked any

27

“cognizable basis” and because Mr. Shek’s allegations therein were “factually baseless” (Dkt.

28

No. 58 at 2).

Dockets.Justia.com

1

Mr. Shek moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal of Judge Chen’s

2

order denying the motion to disqualify. Following review of Mr. Shek’s motion for

3

reconsideration and in light of Judge Chen’s ruling that Mr. Shek’s objections are baseless, the

4

appeal appears to be frivolous. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

5

on appeal is DENIED.

6

In order to get this action back on track in the district court, defendants’ motion to

7

dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) shall be heard on AUGUST 22 AT 8:00 A.M. Because the motion to

8

disqualify has now been decided, Mr. Shek’s motion to vacate the August 22 case management

9

conference is DENIED AS MOOT.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: August 14, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2