Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-04262
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hazari v. Superior Court, Judge White denied Hazari’s request to withdraw, treating it as a request for recusal based on adverse rulings.
The order affected Cyrus Hazari’s requests for disability accommodations and any request for Judge Jeffrey White to step aside from the case; it did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Cyrus Hazari asked to withdraw his disability-accommodation requests from the judge’s consideration. The court treated the request as asking the judge to step aside from handling those requests and possibly from the case itself.
Hazari had multiple sclerosis and had requested additional pauses in the case. He based his request to remove the judge on rulings and other events during the case. The court said those circumstances did not show the required bias or create a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality.
Judge Jeffrey White denied the request to withdraw and also denied it to the extent Hazari meant to ask the judge to step aside from the case.
The detailed version
- Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County · No. 4:21-cv-04262
- Jeffrey White
- July 22, 2022
Background
Cyrus Hazari filed a motion asking that his requests for disability accommodations be withdrawn from consideration by Judge Jeffrey White. The court construed that filing as a request for the judge to recuse himself, meaning to step aside, from considering Hazari’s requests to pause the litigation. The court also addressed the possibility that Hazari intended to seek recusal from the case more generally.
Hazari had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and had asked for repeated stays, or pauses, until his illness allowed him to participate fully in the litigation. The only defendant to appear, Mandy Brady, opposed further stays. On July 1, 2022, the court lifted an earlier stay and directed Hazari to respond to Brady’s motion by July 22. Hazari appealed that order and requested a stay during the appeal. On July 19, the court granted that request and stayed the proceedings while the appeal was resolved.
Recusal request under Section 144
Hazari did not cite legal authority supporting his request and did not file the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 144. That statute addresses recusal based on a judge’s alleged personal bias or prejudice. The court stated, however, that it was not denying the request merely because Hazari had not filed the affidavit or because the case had been pending since 2021.
Instead, the court considered whether the request was legally sufficient on its face. It concluded that Hazari had not shown that recusal was warranted under Section 144. The court stated that it bore Hazari no ill will and had worked to balance the parties’ respective rights to have their cases heard.
Recusal request under Section 455
The court also considered 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires a judge to step aside when the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The court explained that this standard generally requires bias or prejudice to come from outside the judicial proceedings, rather than from the judge’s conduct or rulings during the case.
The court found that Hazari’s request was based on the court’s decisions denying a further stay and on other matters occurring during the proceedings. It therefore concluded that Section 455 did not provide a basis for recusal.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey White denied the request to withdraw. The court also denied the request to the extent Hazari intended to ask the judge to recuse himself from the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.