Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation et al

Filing 108

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/29/15. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,
No. C 14-01279 WHA
Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

v.

13
14

ORDER DENYING
REQUEST FOR RECUSAL

INTEL CORPORATION and ARM, INC.,
Defendants.
/

15
16

An August 19, 2014 order granted Intel Corporation’s motion to declare pro se Michael

17

Bruzzone a vexatious litigant (Dkt. No. 88). Bruzzone did not attend the hearing on the motion.

18

Buzzone’s five motions for reconsideration of that order were each denied. Bruzzone has now

19

filed a motion titled “Request for Judge Alsup Recuse Himself from Case C 14 01279 Pursuant

20

to 28 U.S.C. 144.” He has filed an affidavit in support of his request.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Section 144 of Title 28 of the United States Code states (emphasis added):
Whenever 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 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.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that
bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days
before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be
heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within
such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It
shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating
that it is made in good faith.

1

Bruzzone previously filed an affidavit and moved to disqualify the undersigned in June

2

2014 (Dkt. No. 54). The motion was referred to another judge, who denied it (Dkt. No. 58).

3

Bruzzone’s second motion for recusal is procedurally improper and is hereby DENIED.

4

The pre-filing review order shall remain in place.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: October 29, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2