Razavi v. Coti
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-04341
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Razavi v. Coti, Judge Freeman denied a possible recusal motion and took no further action on plaintiff’s letter beyond service arrangements.
Melina Razavi, the plaintiff, was affected by the denial of the possible recusal request and the court’s responses to her letter. Carlos Coti and GEICO Insurance Company were affected by the separately ordered service of process.
What happened
In Razavi v. Coti, Melina Razavi sent the court a letter giving addresses for serving Carlos Coti and GEICO Insurance Company and raising other concerns. The U.S. Marshal was separately ordered to serve the defendants.
Razavi also asked for a telephone call from the Federal Pro Se Program attorney, accused the judge of misconduct, and objected to wording in an earlier order screening her third amended complaint. The court explained how she could contact the program, said the screening language followed Ninth Circuit authority, and explained that the earlier screening only required a determination that she had stated a colorable claim.
Judge Beth Freeman treated the letter as a possible request for recusal and denied it, finding that it did not provide facts that would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality. The court concluded that no further action was required on the letter other than the separately ordered service of process.
The detailed version
- Razavi v. Coti · No. 5:17-cv-04341
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
Melina Razavi filed a January 29, 2020 letter providing addresses for service of process on Carlos Coti and GEICO Insurance Company. The letter also requested a telephone call from an attorney with the court’s Federal Pro Se Program, asserted misconduct by the judge, and objected to language in the court’s earlier order screening her third amended complaint. The court stated that the U.S. Marshal had been ordered to serve the defendants in a separate order.
Federal Pro Se Program request
Razavi described serious medical conditions, homelessness, and a lack of materials needed to litigate the case. She asked the court to direct a “court attorney” to call her. The court understood this as a request for contact with the Federal Pro Se Program attorney and provided the program’s telephone, email, and office information.
Recusal request
Razavi asserted that the judge had conspired with other judges to cause her homelessness and said she had previously asked for the judge’s removal from the case. Although the docket did not show a recusal motion, the court treated the letter as a possible recusal motion. Recusal means removing a judge from a case because the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned. The court stated that a prior adverse ruling is not enough by itself and denied the motion because the letter did not disclose facts that would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality.
Objection to screening language
Razavi objected to the earlier order’s statement that her pleading met the “low threshold” for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court explained that the language came from controlling Ninth Circuit authority and that it did not need to decide whether the third amended complaint satisfied every pleading requirement during the screening process. It only had to determine whether Razavi had stated a “colorable” claim, meaning a claim that was sufficiently plausible to proceed through screening, and concluded that she had done so.
Disposition
After reviewing the issues in the letter, the court concluded that no further action was required except for the separately ordered service of process by the U.S. Marshal. The order therefore denied the possible recusal motion and otherwise addressed, rather than separately granting or denying, the additional issues raised in the letter.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.