Richter

Richter v. Ausmus

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 20, 20223:19-cv-08300-WHOCalifornia1,107 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JULIA RICHTER, Case No. 19-cv-08300-WHO

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. REASSIGN THE CASE TO ANOTHER

JUDGE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 455

LISA AUSMUS, et al., AND/OR 28 U.S.C. § 144 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 138

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Julia Richter has filed a motion seeking my recusal or disqualification pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. § 455 and 28 U.S.C. § 144, on the basis that I have been supervising the federally appointed Monitor of the Oakland Police Department (Allen et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. 00-4599) and I am, therefore, biased in favor of the City of Oakland defendants as shown by rulings in this case that Ms. Richter disagrees with. Dkt. No. 138. Ms. Richter’s motion is DENIED.1 LEGAL STANDARD Motions to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 144 are expressly conditioned “upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.