Kelly
Kelly v. Cubesmart
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CYNTHIA RENEE KELLY, Case No. 22-cv-05470-HSG
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO REASSIGN CASE
v. Re: Dkt. No. 51 CUBESMART, et al., Defendants.
12 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, responded to the Court’s order at Dkt. No. 46 and requested that the case be reassigned to another judge in the Northern District of California. See Dkt. No. 51. The Court DENIES the request. “[I]n the absence of a legitimate reason to recuse himself, a judge should participate in cases assigned.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff asserts, based entirely on the Court’s legal rulings, that the undersigned “inflict[ed] extreme prejudice with the ‘intent to cause harm’” and “violat[ed] Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Dkt. No. 51 at 1. Judicial rulings absolutely may be raised in any eventual appeal, but are not a valid basis for a motion for recusal. See Holland, 519 F.3d at 913–14 (citing Liteky v.…