Kinnard v. Nararro

Background

On September 16, 2025, the court issued a screening order dismissing the action with prejudice and directing the Clerk to close the file. Kinnard, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed motions to recuse the judge, change venue, alter or amend the judgment, correct a docket notice, and obtain reconsideration.

Motion to Recuse

Kinnard argued that the judge had shown bias and prejudice against him. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court concluded that Kinnard’s allegations arose from prior unfavorable rulings and therefore did not provide a legally sufficient basis for recusal. The court also rejected Kinnard’s argument that the judge’s prior private practice and service as a United States Attorney created a valid basis for disqualification, finding no connection between those prior jobs and the parties in this case.

The court denied the motion to recuse.

Motion to Change Venue

Kinnard sought accommodations based on his age, health, and proximity to the San Francisco courthouse. The court denied the motion to change venue. The court stated that, if the matter were returned to the judge, Kinnard could appear by Zoom conference to accommodate his advanced age and poor health.

Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment

Kinnard invoked Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e), 60(b)(1), 60(b)(4), 60(b)(6), 60(d)(1), and 60(d)(3), arguing that newly discovered evidence, legal error, and manifest injustice required reversal of the earlier judgment. The court found no newly discovered evidence that changed its view of Kinnard’s claims and no clear legal error or manifest injustice requiring amendment.

The court said that although pleadings from a person without a lawyer must be read with some flexibility, Kinnard still failed to state claims on which relief could be granted. The court further found that the claims were lapsed and had been the subject of multiple earlier federal lawsuits, making them barred by res judicata—a rule generally preventing relitigation of claims already resolved in an earlier case. The court also considered equitable tolling based on Kinnard’s hardships and impairments but did not find that it changed the result.

The court denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment.

Motion to Correct the Notice

Kinnard asked the court to correct the docket so that his filing at Docket No. 26 would be identified as a motion for terminating sanctions based on alleged evidence destruction, fraud on the court, and unconscionable conduct, rather than as a judicial notice.

The court granted the motion to correct the docket. It also stated that the sanctions motion was not well taken because the lawsuit had already been dismissed and there was no further opportunity to impose sanctions against the defendants.

Motion for Reconsideration

Kinnard argued that physical impairments should permit the court to treat his claims as timely. The court stated that missed deadlines were not the determinative issue. Instead, it maintained its prior findings that the claims were time-barred, stale, and had been the subject of earlier federal actions. The court denied the motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

The court denied the motions to recuse, change venue, alter or amend the judgment, and reconsider the prior dismissal. It granted the motion to correct the docket notice. The prior dismissal with prejudice remained in place.