ORDER RE: MOTION FOR NEW AND DIFFERENT ORDER, MOTION TO RECUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 135, 137

THOMAS S. HIXSON, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lakshmi Arunachalam's "Sua Sponte Dismissal of the Court's Order (D.I. 134) Violating the Constitution" and "Motion to Enter a New and Different Order Consistent with Procedural Rules and `Law of the Case' and `Law of the Land' — the `Fletcher Challenge.'" ECF No. 135. For the reasons stated in the Court's previous orders, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. See Sua Sponte Order Dismissing Compl., ECF No. 130 (also available at Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank, 2018 WL 4849680 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2018)); Order Denying Motion to Alter Judgment, ECF No. 134.

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Recusal. ECF No. 137. Plaintiff seeks recusal of the undersigned judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§ 144, arguing: "Judge Hixson warred against the Constitution in treasonous breach of his solemn Oath of Office, in my Presidio Bank case 12-4962-TSH (N.D. Ca), not enforcing the Supreme Law(s) of the Land Mandated Prohibition against rescinding Government-Issued Patent Contract Grants, declared by Chief Justice Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810), reaffirmed by the Supreme Court; lost his jurisdiction and immunity." Although the basis for Plaintiff's motion is not entirely clear, it appears her assertions of lack of impartiality, bias, and prejudice are based upon rulings by the undersigned that Plaintiff perceives as unfavorable. The motion is DENIED. Judicial rulings are not a proper ground for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); see also United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A judge is not disqualified by a litigant's suit or threatened suit against him, or by a litigant's intemperate and scurrilous attacks.").

IT IS SO ORDERED.