Herndon v. Experian; Experian Info Sol Inc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
HEATHER HERNDON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00165-SLG
ORDER RE THIRD DEMAND AMENDED FOR REASSIGNMENT OF JUDGE
Before the Court are Plaintiff Heather Herndon’s “Third Demand for
Reassignment of Judge” at Docket 58 and “Third Demand Amended for
Reassignment of Judge” at Docket 59.1 Ms. Herndon’s amended demand at
Docket 59 appears to be identical to her demand at Docket 58 apart from
identifying herself as a “vessel” in the amended filing in the caption of the case.
Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. did not file a response to either
motion.2
Ms. Herndon takes issue with several of the Court’s rulings, including the
Court’s denial of Ms. Herndon’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court’s
1 Although Ms. Herndon has captioned these filings as demands, the Court will treat them as
motions.
2 Ms. Herndon has also filed a motion for a permanent injunction, which will be addressed in a
separate order. See Docket 55,
Case 3:22-cv-00165-SLG Document 65 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:22-cv-00165-SLG, Herndon v. Experian, et al.
Order re Third Demand Amended for Reassignment of Judge
Page 2 of 2
“granting Defendant two extensions to Plaintiff’s expressed objections.”3 However,
disagreements with “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for
a bias or partiality motion,” and the Court does not find reassignment necessary or
appropriate in this case.4
In addition, as the Court stated in its order on April 20, 2023 (Docket 49),
Ms. Herndon is once more cautioned that all Court filings requesting that the Court
enter an order must be in the form of a motion, with an appropriate caption
designating the name of the motion. And for all but dispositive motions, the moving
party is required to file with the motion a proposed order setting forth the relief that
the party is seeking.5 “Notices” and “Demands” are not motions, and the Court
may not take any action on future filings that are not substantially in compliance
with the local rules.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Third Demand
for Reassignment of Judge” at Docket 58 and “Third Demand Amended for
Reassignment of Judge” at Docket 59 are DENIED.
DATED this 8th day of June, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 Docket 59 at 1.
4 In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004), superseded by statute on other
grounds, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119
Stat. 23 (2005), as recognized in Dep’t of Revenue v. Blixseth, 942 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2019).
5 See Alaska L. Civ. R. 7.1(b).
Case 3:22-cv-00165-SLG Document 65 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 2