Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de291> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de291 RegisterActionDate "2017-06-10" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de291 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiff 7C0F2BC motion for recusal 289 is denied, for the same reasons set forth in R. 282 (nor does the filing of 17-cv-4286 alter the analysis, because litigants could sua sponte obtain recusals if the mere filing of a complaint against the judge were automatically grounds for recusal). The Court previously warned: "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." R. 282. Plaintiff 7C0F2BC has repeated the allegation, R. 289 at 3 (arguing for recusal based on, in part, "Judge Chang's [t]hreats to the Plaintiff 7C0F2BC of possible Killing or set up Plaintiffs 7C0F2BC and Umunna"). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3), Plaintiff 7C0F2BC is ordered to show cause (that is, to explain) in writing why the identified statement does not violate Rule 11(b)(1) or 11(b)(3). Plaintiff 7C0F2BC response to the rule to show cause is due by 06/28/2017. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 06/11/2017)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de291 AdministrativeID "291" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de291 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-02432_de289 @default.