Trevillion v. Dillon et al

Filing 47

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 1/6/2012. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

KIM Y. TREVILLION,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

HARRY E. DILLON,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 11-4474 PJH

Defendant(s).
_______________________________/

12
13

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s Closure of Case, filed on December 8, 2011.

14

Plaintiff states therein that she requests that the present “cause of action” be closed and all

15

court appearances scheduled for January and February 2012 “removed from the docket.”

16

The court construes plaintiff’s filing as a voluntary notice of dismissal, and accordingly,

17

GRANTS dismissal of the instant action, without prejudice.

18

To the extent that plaintiff’s notice goes beyond a request for dismissal and

19

delineates “reasons for case closure” that include claims of “racial bias” and “favoritism” by

20

the undersigned, as well as other assertions that the undersigned “condones”

21

discrimination and other unlawful conduct by defendant, the court construes such

22

statements as a request for recusal. However, plaintiff has failed to file any affidavit

23

detailing any alleged bias or other grounds for recusal, which is enough to warrant

24

dismissal of the motion as legally insufficient without even reaching the merits of plaintiff's

25

assertion. Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 1981). Even if the court

26

construes plaintiff's motion as constituting the affidavit under the liberal pleading standards

27

afforded to pro se litigants, plaintiff's claims of bias and favoritism are largely

28

incomprehensible, and devoid of merit. Nowhere does plaintiff provide any detail or factual

1

recitations regarding the manner in which plaintiff has had her legal rights purportedly

2

violated by the undersigned, nor does plaintiff provide any supporting or detailed facts for

3

any of her conclusions of bias. Accordingly, even assuming a proper motion for recusal

4

before the court, plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for a determination that the court

5

has a personal bias or prejudice against them, or that the court's impartiality might

6

reasonably be questioned. See U.S. v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980)(holding

7

affidavit not legally sufficient unless it alleges facts demonstrating bias or prejudice that "

8

stems from an extrajudicial source"). Consequently, plaintiff's claims of bias, favoritism,

9

and other impermissible conduct by the undersigned, is untenable.
In sum, however, the instant action is DISMISSED. No further filings by plaintiff shall

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

be made in the instant action.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: January 6, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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