Stricklin v. Glazer
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:23-cv-04870
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stricklin v. Glazer, Judge Chesney denied Stricklin’s motions to disqualify the judge and reconsider dismissal of the action.
Plaintiff Stricklin’s efforts to disqualify the judge and obtain reconsideration of the dismissal were unsuccessful; the defendants’ earlier dismissal ruling was left undisturbed.
What happened
In Stricklin v. Glazer, the court had dismissed the action after granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss and giving Stricklin time to file an amended complaint. Stricklin did not file that complaint by the deadline.
Stricklin then filed a motion seeking the judge’s disqualification, a filing treated as a motion to reconsider the dismissal, and a case-management statement. She proceeded without a lawyer.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied the disqualification motion because it challenged the court’s earlier ruling rather than identifying a legally sufficient reason for bias. Judge Chesney also denied reconsideration because Stricklin did not provide a valid basis under the applicable rule. The court took no action on the case-management statement because the scheduled conference had been canceled after dismissal.
The detailed version
- Stricklin v. Glazer · No. 3:23-cv-04870
- Maxine Chesney
- Apr. 2, 2024
Background
The court previously granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint and allowed plaintiff Stricklin to file a first amended complaint by February 2, 2024. The court later dismissed the action because Stricklin had not filed the amended complaint.
On March 28, 2024, Stricklin filed three documents: a motion to disqualify the judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455, an opposition brief, and a case-management statement. The court construed the opposition brief as a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the complaint. The opinion states that Stricklin proceeded without a lawyer.
Disqualification Motion
The court denied the motion for disqualification. Stricklin’s motion expressed disagreement with the order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court explained that judicial rulings alone almost never establish the bias or antagonism required for disqualification, particularly when no outside source of bias is identified. The court concluded that Stricklin’s motion did no more than challenge an unfavorable ruling.
Motion for Reconsideration
The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It found that Stricklin’s filing primarily asserted legal propositions, some of which did not apply to her claims or to the defendants’ dismissal arguments. The court also found that the filing did not identify a valid ground for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Case-Management Statement
The court took no action on the case-management statement because the case-management conference scheduled for April 5, 2024, had been vacated after the action was dismissed.
Disposition
The motion for disqualification was denied. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The court took no action on the case-management statement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.