Shove v. McDonald et al

Filing 152

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying 125 Motion ; denying 127 Motion for Recusal. ; granting 133 Motion for Extension of Time to File; denying 138 Motion to Compel; denying 141 Motion ; granting 149 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The opposition to the motion for summary judgment will be filed by September 10, 2018. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THEODORE SHOVE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-02903-JD

ORDER ON MOTIONS

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 125, 127, 133, 138, 141, 149
MCDONALD, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner. The Court denied defendants’

14

motion to dismiss as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to submit to a deposition. The Court noted

15

that while plaintiff’s conduct was not acceptable, dismissing the case was a drastic sanction that

16

was not warranted at the time. Although defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment,

17

they reported that plaintiff sat for the deposition but refused to answer many questions. This order

18

addresses several motions filed by plaintiff, and a motion for an extension filed by defendants.

19

Plaintiff has filed a motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 on the grounds that the Court

20

has made adverse rulings against him and ordered him to sit for a deposition. Section 455 may

21

support recusal when the judge: (a) has a personal bias or prejudice against a party; (b) has

22

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts; (c) either before or after becoming a judge was

23

related to or connected with the case, the parties or their attorneys; or (d) the judge or a relative

24

has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or a party to the proceeding or any

25

interest that would be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings. § 455(b)(1)-(4).

26

None of these conditions exists here, and mere dissatisfaction with the Court’s rulings is no

27

basis for recusal. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999). And as the

28

record shows, the Court has issued orders “adverse” to both sides’ requests at various times in the

1
2
3

case. Recusal is denied.
Plaintiff will be given an extension to file an opposition to the motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff should use this time to prepare his opposition.

4

The Court has serious concerns about the number of frivolous motions and other papers

5

plaintiff is filing in this case. If this unacceptable conduct continues, the Court will summarily

6

strike plaintiff’s filings, and will consider entering a pre-filing screening requirement.

7

In addition to that admonition, the Court orders:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Docket No. 125) is DENIED for the same reasons as

9

set forth in several prior orders.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (Docket No. 127) is DENIED.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

3. Defendants’ request for an extension of time (Docket No. 133) is GRANTED and the

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

motion for summary judgment is deemed timely filed.
4. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket No. 138) is DENIED because plaintiff has failed
to describe his discovery requests and defendants have provided discovery responses.
5. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement (Docket No. 141) is DENIED. Plaintiff may include
these exhibits and arguments in his opposition to the summary judgment motion.
6. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Docket No. 149) is GRANTED and the
opposition to the motion for summary judgment will be filed by September 10, 2018.
Each party is advised that a failure to adhere to these orders will result in sanctions,
including dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 14, 2018

23
24
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

THEODORE SHOVE,

Case No. 14-cv-02903-JD

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8

MCDONALD, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

12
13
14
15
16

That on August 14, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

17
18
19

Theodore Shove ID: G11092
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, CA 94974

20
21

Dated: August 14, 2018

22
23
24

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
3