Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de282> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de282 RegisterActionDate "2017-06-03" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de282 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiffs' motion to recuse 276 and motion to amend complaint 278 are denied. The recusal motion advances two frivolous arguments: adverse decisions issued in the case and the judge's prior government service. Adverse decisions are almost never by themselves a proper basis for recusal, and no exception applies here. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). And the judge's prior government service has no connection at all to this litigation. The Court notes that the motion even accuses the judge of possibly threatening to "kill" Plaintiffs. R. 276 at 2 para. 5; id. at 8. Obviously that statement has no reasonable basis. Plaintiffs are warned that even pro se litigants are bound by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and that federal courts may initiate, on their own, a sanctions motion under Rule 11(c)(3). Any further frivolous accusations may trigger an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause why they should not be sanctioned. If Plaintiffs are allegedly having trouble receiving the entirety of orders (an allegation for which there is no factual basis), then they may ask for remailings or access the docket at the courthouse. The motion to amend complaint 278 is denied as being based on the same frivolous basis as the motion to recuse, and because dismissal motion practice has begun on the Second Amended Complaint. Emailed notice (and also mailed notice will be sent to Plaintiffs). (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 06/03/2017)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de282 AdministrativeID "282" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de282 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de276 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de282 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de278 @default.