Wang v. Nevada System of Higher Education

Filing 196

ORDER - Plaintiff's motion to supplement (ECF No. 187 ) is denied; Plaintiff's motion for recusal (ECF No. 172 ) is denied; Plaintiff may not file any more pretrial motions. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/1/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
GUANGYU WANG,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00075-MMD-CLB

7
Plaintiff,
9

ORDER

v.

8

NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION,

10
Defendant.
11
12
13

I.

SUMMARY

14

Pro se Plaintiff Guangyu Wang has one remaining claim for retaliation against

15

Defendant Nevada System of Higher Education following summary judgment

16

proceedings. While unforeseen circumstances have led to continuation of the trial, now

17

scheduled for the Court’s November 30, 2020 trial stack, Plaintiff has continued to

18

disregard the Court’s admonishment to cease frivolous filings. This order addresses two

19

such filings: Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the audio recording of his deposition (ECF

20

No. 187); and Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (ECF No. 172). The Court denies both motions

21

and again admonishes Plaintiff that further violation of the Court’s order to cease frivolous

22

filings will result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of his remaining claim.

23

II.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT (ECF No. 187)

24

Plaintiff asks the Court to allow him to supplement a copy of the bilingual audio

25

recording of his deposition. (ECF No. 187.) As the Court pointed out in its recent order

26

addressing Plaintiff’s request to impanel at least six jurors who are fluent in Mandarin

27

Chinese and English, the Court has repeatedly rejected Plaintiff’s use of the audio

28

recording of his deposition to challenge the transcript of his deposition. (ECF No. 166 at

1

2, 9 (citing ECF Nos. 109, 114, 117).) In fact, Plaintiff has filed numerous motions raising

2

similar issues about his deposition. The chart below reflects a sample of these filings and

3

their dispositions.

4

3/5/19

ECF No. 77

5
6
7

Plaintiff’s expedited motion for leave to supplement the
corrected transcript of Plaintiff’s deposition.

4/19/19 ECF No. 89

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 77).

4/29/19 ECF No. 93

Plaintiff’s motion for a justified valid full draft of transcript
of the deposition of 1/29/2019 for Plaintiff’s review.

5/1/19

ECF No. 95

Plaintiff's motion to request a justified valid full transcript
of the deposition of 1/29/19 for plaintiff review and
modification (ECF No. 93) was denied for the reasons set
forth
in
the
court’s
prior
orders
(ECF
1
Nos. 65 , 75 , 89 , 90, 91 ).

5/6/19

ECF No. 96

Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Baldwin’s Orders (ECF No.
95) regarding deposition.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

7/12/19 ECF
109
7/23/19 ECF
110

No. The Court overruled Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 96).

8/12/19 ECF
114

No. The Court summarily denied
reconsideration (ECF No. 110).

9/4/19

ECF
116
9/5/19 ECF
117
1/24/20 ECF
139

No. Objection to order of 8/12/19 (ECF No. 114).

4/23/20 ECF
167
5/1/20 ECF
168
5/7/20 ECF
171

No. The Court summarily denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel
(ECF No. 167).
No. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of order on 4/23/20
(ECF No. 167).
No. The Court summarily denied Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 167).

No. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration regarding order of
7/12/19 (ECF No. 109).
the

motion

for

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. The Court summarily overruled Plaintiff’s objection (ECF
No. 116).
No. Plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of the audio
recording of his deposition and reasserting allegations
challenging his deposition.

Judge Baldwin warned, “[n]o further motions concerning plaintiff’s
deposition transcript will be entertained by the court other than a motion for correction of
transcript pursuant to the court’s order (ECF No. 91 ). (ECF No. 95.)
2
1There,

The Court will summarily deny Plaintiff’s motion to supplement an audio recording

1
2

of his deposition (ECF No. 187) as well.

3

The Court further reiterates its repeated admonishment that Plaintiff must refrain

4

from filing motions seeking similar relief. In fact, given the fact the remaining claim is ready

5

for trial and the Court has long ago resolved pretrial motions, the Court will not permit

6

Plaintiff to file any more pretrial motions.2

7

III.

MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ECF No. 172)

8

Plaintiff seeks recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455, contending the assigned judges are

9

biased against him and their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.3 (ECF No. 172

10

at 2.)

11

28 U.S.C. § 455(a) mandates disqualification if the judge’s impartiality might

12

reasonably be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Section 455(b)(1) compels recusal

13

where a judge has personal bias or prejudice towards the moving party. See 28 U.S.C. §

14

455(b)(1). The substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is: “[W]hether a

15

reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

16

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939

17

(9th Cir. 1986) (quotation omitted).

18

Plaintiff argues that the presiding district judge should recuse herself because she

19

obtained her undergraduate degree at the University of California, Davis (“UC Davis”),

20

Plaintiff’s former employer immediately following termination of his employment with

21

Defendant. No reasonable person would find that the undersigned’s impartiality might

22

reasonably be questioned because she graduated from the university that employed

23
24
25
26
27
28

2The

same applies to Defendant, although Defendant has not filed any pretrial
motions since its second motion in limine filed on October 23, 2019. (ECF No. 130.)
asserts that counsel “is emotionally related to this Court” and the court of
appeals and should be disqualified. (ECF No. 172 at 3.) Needless to say, Plaintiff’s
disagreement with the opposing party’s counsel is not a basis for disqualification of
counsel.
3Plaintiff

3

1

Plaintiff, and whose employees were identified as witnesses to some of Plaintiff’s claims

2

against Defendant.

3

Plaintiff’s contention relating to Judge Baldwin is equally tenuous. He argues Judge

4

Baldwin should recuse herself because she graduated from the University of Nevada,

5

Reno (“UNR”), which is part of the University of Nevada System of Higher Education, and

6

because she previously “worked on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”4 (ECF No. 172 at

7

2-3.) Judge Baldwin’s impartiality cannot be reasonably questioned because of her

8

affiliation with UNR or with a former member of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

9

Plaintiff cites as evidence of bias the rulings with which he disagrees and the

10

Court’s handlings of his frivolous motions. (Id. at 4-15.) The Supreme Court opined that

11

“[j]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”

12

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Furthermore, it held:
[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or
events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior
proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion
unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that
would make fair judgment impossible.

13
14
15
16
17

Id. Recusal is not appropriate here simply because Plaintiff strongly disagrees with the

18

Court’s rulings. In fact, the Court has an equally compelling obligation not to recuse where

19

recusal is not appropriate. See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008).

20

IV.

CONCLUSION

21

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to supplement (ECF No. 187) is denied.

22

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (ECF No. 172) is denied.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

4Judge

Baldwin clerked for The Honorable Proctor R. Hug, Jr. on the Ninth Circuit
Court
of
Appeals.
See
Magistrate
Judge
Carla
Baldwin
Biography,
https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-information/judges/magistrate-judge-carla-baldwin/
(last visited Sept. 30, 2020).
4

1

It is further ordered that Plaintiff may not file any more pretrial motions. Plaintiff’s

2

failure to comply with this order with result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of

3

Plaintiff’s remaining retaliation claim.

4

DATED THIS 1st Day of October 2020.

5
6
7

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5