Kelly v. Cubesmart
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-05470
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kelly v. Cubesmart, Judge Gilliam denied Kelly’s request to reassign the case because adverse rulings do not establish judicial bias.
The ruling directly affected Cynthia Renee Kelly’s request to change judges; the case remained before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., with two motions to dismiss still pending.
What happened
In Kelly v. Cubesmart, Cynthia Renee Kelly, representing herself, asked the Northern District of California to assign her case to another judge. She based the request on the judge’s legal rulings, which she said caused extreme prejudice and violated her constitutional rights.
The court denied the request. It explained that a judge’s legal rulings may be challenged in an appeal but generally are not a valid reason to require reassignment or recusal. The court also noted that it had not yet ruled on the two pending motions to dismiss or issued any substantive orders in the case.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order on January 27, 2023. The order also stated that, unless Kelly filed a separate opposition, the court would treat her reassignment request as her opposition to one pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Kelly v. Cubesmart · No. 4:22-cv-05470
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
Cynthia Renee Kelly, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to reassign her case to another judge in the Northern District of California. Kelly based her request entirely on the court’s prior legal rulings, asserting that those rulings caused “extreme prejudice” with an intent to harm her and violated her constitutional rights.
The opinion states that two motions to dismiss were pending. It also states that the court had not yet ruled on those motions or issued any substantive orders in the case.
Ruling
The court denied Kelly’s request to reassign the case. It explained that, absent a legitimate reason for the judge to step aside, the assigned judge should participate in the case. A judge’s prior adverse ruling, by itself, is not sufficient evidence of bias, and legal rulings may instead be raised in a later appeal.
The court also stated that Kelly could file an opposition addressing the substance of the pending motion to dismiss by February 2, 2023. If she did not file an opposition, the court would treat the reassignment request as her opposition. Defendants could file a reply by February 9, 2023.
Disposition and Effect
The request to reassign the case was denied. This order did not decide the pending motions to dismiss or the underlying claims. It also informed Kelly that the court’s Legal Help Center offers free information and limited-scope legal advice to people representing themselves in civil cases, but does not serve as a litigant’s lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.