Filed: Apr. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISQUALIFY, AND RETURN PROPERTY Re: Dkt. No. 94 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of a document, titled "Defendant's . . . Fifth Motion to Dismiss, Third Motion to Disqualify U.S. Attorney David L. Anderson and his Office, Fifth Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel, Fifth Motion to Disqualify Judges, Third Motion to Return Property, Motion for Notice of Appeal, and Third Petition for Intervention," filed pro se, by def
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISQUALIFY, AND RETURN PROPERTY Re: Dkt. No. 94 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of a document, titled "Defendant's . . . Fifth Motion to Dismiss, Third Motion to Disqualify U.S. Attorney David L. Anderson and his Office, Fifth Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel, Fifth Motion to Disqualify Judges, Third Motion to Return Property, Motion for Notice of Appeal, and Third Petition for Intervention," filed pro se, by defe..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISQUALIFY, AND RETURN PROPERTY
Re: Dkt. No. 94
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
The Court is in receipt of a document, titled "Defendant's . . . Fifth Motion to Dismiss, Third Motion to Disqualify U.S. Attorney David L. Anderson and his Office, Fifth Motion to Disqualify Defense Counsel, Fifth Motion to Disqualify Judges, Third Motion to Return Property, Motion for Notice of Appeal, and Third Petition for Intervention," filed pro se, by defendant Kuang Bao Ou-Young ("Ou-Young") on April 10, 2019. By said document, Ou-Young, once again, seeks to: (1) dismiss the instant case "with prejudice" (see Mot. at 2:7); (2) disqualify the entire U.S. Attorney's Office, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, the undersigned, and his appointed attorney James M. Thompson; (3) recover property he alleges was seized by the U.S. Marshals Service and the City of Sunnyvale; and (4) petition the Attorney General to intervene in the instant action.
For the reasons set forth in the Court's Order of February 22, 2019, denying Ou-Young's "Third Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Disqualify U.S. Attorney David L. Anderson and His Office, Third Motion to Disqualify Counsel and Motion to Return Property," the instant motion is hereby DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. To the extent Ou-Young argues a recent order by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supports a different ruling as to his competency (see Mot. at 4:3-9), the Court finds such argument unpersuasive.
