Bruzzone v. Intel Corporation et al

Filing 114

ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE by Hon. William Alsup denying 109 Motion to Disqualify Judge.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2015)

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

INTEL CORPORATION and ARM, INC.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING
THIRD MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY JUDGE
/

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). Although Bruzzone repeatedly described himself

18

as a “relator” charged with investigating alleged antitrust and espionage violations in the

19

microprocessor industry, he is not a “relator” and the United States is not a party to this action.

20

Bruzzone has filed numerous motions seeking reconsideration of that order, each of which has

21

been denied. Bruzzone also moved to disqualify the undersigned judge pursuant to Section 144

22

of Title 28 of the United States Code. As required by Section 144, that motion was referred to

23

another judge, who denied it (Dkt. No. 58). Bruzzone filed a second motion under Section 144,

24

which was denied because a party may only file one motion under Section 144 per case (Dkt.

25

No. 108).

26

Bruzzone now moves to disqualify the undersigned judge from this matter under

27

Sections 455(a) and 455(b)(1) of Title 28 of the United States Code and Section 1001(a) of Title

28

18 of the United States Code. Section 455(a) provides that a judge should disqualify himself
from a proceeding “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Section
455(b)(1) provides that a judge should also disqualify himself where he has a “personal bias or

1

prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning

2

the proceeding . . . .” Section 1001 provides for fines and imprisonment for fraudulent conduct

3

in government matters. Neither Section 455 nor Section 1001 requires a motion to be referred

4

to another judge. Bruzzone’s recourse, which he has already exhausted, was to file a motion

5

under Section 144.

6

Bruzzone’s motion is DENIED.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: November 30, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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