Zhang v. Apple
- 3:23-cv-00972
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Zhang v. Apple, the court denied disqualification and reassignment motions and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for nonpayment of the filing fee.
Taiming Zhang’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and his requests to disqualify the judge and reassign the case were denied. Apple Inc. was the defendant.
What happened
In Zhang v. Apple, Taiming Zhang asked the court to reopen a prior motion, add to a request to disqualify the judge, and proceed without a hearing. Zhang also argued that the case had been assigned improperly and should be reassigned to the San Jose Division.
The court ruled that Zhang’s allegations did not show bias from an outside source or provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality. It denied the request to disqualify the judge and denied the request to reassign the case. The court also noted that Zhang had not paid the filing fee after his request to proceed without paying it was denied.
The court dismissed Zhang’s complaint without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee, treating his appeal as showing that he did not intend to pay it. The court, which is not identified by name in the provided opinion text, terminated the motion.
The detailed version
- Zhang v. Apple · No. 3:23-cv-00972
- June 2, 2023
Background
Taiming Zhang filed an “ex parte emergency motion on reopening the last motion, and further additions to the disqualification motion without hearing.” The court treated the filing as raising three issues: disqualification of the presiding judge, reassignment of the case to the San Jose Division, and the effect of Zhang’s failure to pay the filing fee.
The court stated that Zhang had previously applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that application, finding that his claims were frivolous and that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court also denied earlier ex parte motions on procedural grounds. Zhang had not paid the filing fee by the deadline set by the court and had instead filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Disqualification request
The court considered the request under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 concerns a legally sufficient affidavit alleging that a judge has personal bias or prejudice. Section 455 requires disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The court held that Zhang’s allegations did not establish bias or prejudice. Dissatisfaction with the court’s earlier rulings was not enough, and Zhang identified no facts showing bias from an extrajudicial source. The court found Zhang’s affidavit legally insufficient under Section 144 and found no reasonable grounds to question the judge’s impartiality under Section 455. The motion to disqualify the judge was DENIED.
Reassignment request
Zhang argued that the case had been improperly assigned and should be reassigned to the San Jose Division. The court explained that the District of California’s assignment plan had been modified so that some civil cases normally handled in San Jose could be assigned to judges in San Francisco or Oakland. The court concluded that the assignment served judicial economy and efficiency by augmenting judicial resources in the San Jose Division. The motion to reassign the case was DENIED.
Filing-fee issue and disposition
The court had previously ordered Zhang to pay the filing fee by April 28, 2023, or face dismissal. Zhang had not paid the fee. Because Zhang had filed an appeal instead, the court construed the appeal as an intention not to pay the filing fee in this action. The court DISMISSED the complaint without prejudice.
The order terminated ECF No. 17. The court also advised Zhang that basic legal information and assistance were available through the district court’s Legal Help Center, which does not represent parties.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.