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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?