Sanai v. Kozinski

Background

Cyrus Sanai sought leave to file a motion for relief from earlier orders concerning recusal. The court granted leave and, for efficiency, deemed the proposed motion filed. The motion challenged the court’s conclusions about recusal and the requirement that Sanai obtain approval before making additional filings about recusal.

Court’s reasoning

The court relied on Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9, which governs proposed motions for reconsideration before entry of a judgment resolving all claims and the parties’ rights and liabilities. The court said the rule provided guidance even though there would be no final judgment on the recusal issue.

The court denied relief. It stated that Sanai’s dissatisfaction with the court’s conclusions was not a basis for reconsideration or similar relief. It also concluded that Sanai had misunderstood an earlier recusal order and that the misunderstanding did not support relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which permits relief from an order for certain specified reasons, or under any other standard.

The court upheld the prior-approval requirement for further recusal filings. It found that the requirement was narrowly tailored to the recusal claim and Sanai’s repeated filing of motions rehashing claims and arguments already addressed by the court. The court emphasized that Sanai remained an electronic court-filing user, that his access to the courts had not been restricted, and that no rule or statute had been violated.

The court also rejected Sanai’s argument that he had been deprived of a right to file a reply brief. It stated that there is no absolute right to file a reply and that Sanai had not shown that he was denied a fair opportunity to present his claims or concerns.

Disposition

The court granted Sanai’s request for leave to file the motion for relief, deemed the motion filed, and denied relief from the orders on recusal. The order was entered on September 7, 2021.