govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cr-00085-9

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
JESSE F. SWARTZ, 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
No.  CR 23-00085 WHA    
 
 
 
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 
MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL, 
REASSIGNMENT, AND OTHER 
RELIEF 
 
 
Defendant Jesse F. Swartz, who is on supervised release, has filed a flurry of motions.  
Each is addressed in turn.  
*  *  * 
On February 4, 2025, defendant filed a motion titled “MOTION TO DISPENSE 
PARTIAL DECLARATORY AND MONETARY REMEDY TO DEFENDANT JESSE F. 
SWARTZ” (Dkt. No. 332).  The motion does not state a cognizable claim for relief and is 
generally incomprehensible.  For example, defendant writes:   
 
Based on Court Security Officer (“CSO”) and DHS (“Dept. of 
Homeland Security”) officer responses to the commotion I 
intentionally caused on or about February 8th, I decided the 
officers were not “federal officers.”  First I must define “federal 
officer.”  Federal officer = “really, really good.”  Good = “very 
competent, relative to function, position or role.”  Also, Federal > 
State > City because of goodness level.  If Mayor says X and U.S. 
Attorney says Y, then Y it is as long as U.S. Attorney has all skills 
and data points to decide between X and Y. 
 
Case 3:23-cr-00085-WHA     Document 338     Filed 02/12/25     Page 1 of 6
 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
(id. at 3).   
And later:   
 
On June 28th, 2023, Judge Alsup or his replacement writes:  “Jesse 
Franklin Swartz, V good person, smart and work very good.  
Everyone say he bad worker and person, but he good and smart.  
He paid $5 MM for starters.  Pay him today, to Wells Fargo and 
Goldman Sach’s accounts.  Why?  Because nice dancing lady so 
sad when he leaves Gold Club last night.  Why he leave dancing 
lady club?  Because he had only enough for a few $8 beers with 
tips for bartenders, a tip for the nice manager who invite Georgina, 
and one “thank you” tip for dance to Georgina.  Nice lady, she like 
Franklin so much and she cry when he leave.  So I fix now!  Two 
representatives from those banks meet here that day, make sure 
money in accounts and meet Jesse Smart Man.”  
 
Now Jesse (aka “Franklin”) have money.  He leave shelter and buy 
house. 
 
Maybe take Georgina to NBA All Star game. 
 
(id. at 9).   
Attached to defendant’s motion are several previously filed civil complaints:  A petition 
for declaratory relief against “SAP SE” and “Mary Beth Hanss,” an “amended complaint” 
against Oracle, and so forth (Dkt. Nos. 332-1 – 332-5).  All are irrelevant to the present 
criminal action.   
The motion fails to state a claim for relief and is DENIED.   
*  *  * 
Next, defendant has filed two motions requesting recusal or reassignment.   
First, on October 28, 2024, defendant filed a “request for reassignment,” wherein he 
demanded that “all outstanding requests be reassigned by [Judge] Seeborg” in light of 
defendant’s lawsuit against the undersigned in the Eastern District of California (Dkt. No. 
325).   
Second, on February 4, 2025, defendant filed a similar motion titled “REITERATED 
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 455 & 
REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT TO CHIEF JUDGE” (Dkt. No. 333). 
Case 3:23-cr-00085-WHA     Document 338     Filed 02/12/25     Page 2 of 6
 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
Defendant first moved to disqualify the undersigned in May 2023 (Dkt. No. 39).  That 
motion was referred to another judge in this district, and summarily denied (Dkt. No. 91) (“The 
defendant’s motion to disqualify Judge Alsup is frivolous and it is denied.”).  In October 2024 
defendant again moved to “impeach” the undersigned (Dkt. No. 319).  That motion was again 
frivolous:  It cited Gozer the Gozerian, the primary antagonist in the film Ghostbusters (1984), 
and suggested that close study of Gozer and her on-screen interactions with Dana Barrett and 
Louis Tully, both characters in the film, supported “impeachment” (ibid.).  The undersigned 
denied that motion outright — it did not warrant referral to another judge.   
The present motions likewise fail.  “A judge is not disqualified by a litigant's suit or 
threatened suit against him.”  United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986).  
Defendant’s latest motions for recusal and reassignment are otherwise frivolous and are, again, 
DENIED.   
*   *  * 
On February 4, 2025, defendant filed a motion titled “MOTION TO ALTER 
SENTENCE/JUDGMENT: CANCEL/RESCIND ALL REMAINING PROBATIONARY 
TERMS AND CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO FRCRP 35 OR ANCILLARY LEGAL 
EMPOWERMENT” (Dkt. No. 334).  Rule 35 allows the sentencing court to reduce a 
previously-imposed sentence “upon the government’s motion.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), (b) 
(emphasis added).  The government has made no such motion.   
Defendant’s motion is procedurally improper and is DENIED.   
On February 6, 2025, defendant filed several “exhibits” in support of the above motion.  
The first so-called “exhibit” is, in reality, a separate 29-page brief.  Therein, defendant argues 
that various attorneys, known and unknown, have committed sanctionable attorney 
misconduct, and demands that they be referred to the Bar’s Committee on Professional 
Responsibility and Conduct, the United States Attorney’s Office of Professional 
Responsibility, and so on (Dkt. No. 335-1).   
Defendant’s motion is frivolous.  For example, as to one of the government’s attorneys in 
this matter, defendant asserts:   
Case 3:23-cr-00085-WHA     Document 338     Filed 02/12/25     Page 3 of 6
 
4 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
A female clerk in the court had knelt under the defense’s table to 
plug something in.  Mr. Migler, walking over to that table and 
crouching beside her, said “Do you need some help?”  Although 
masked by the assistance he was giving the female clerk, it is 
possible Mr. Migler was attempting to allege that Mr. Swartz was 
“Currently performing a job which required more people to assist 
him.”  Intentional infliction of emotional distress, CCP Sec. 
527.6. 
(Dkt. No. 335-1 at 22-23) (emphasis in original).  As to one of the several attorneys that 
represented defendant, he writes:   
 
Mr. Swartz thought her speech patterns a bit off; her presentational 
style did not represent what defendant would expect from a 
Harvard Law School graduate.  As an example, when defendant 
asked her how he could depart the holding area’s meet and confer 
room, Ms. Chuang responded “You can just knock.”  During an in 
person interview in her FPD office, defendant asked her if she 
wanted him to send her a written summary of what occurred and 
the context of those events.  She replied in the affirmative and 
added “Send it to me, it’s confidential.”  Defendant believed her 
tone of voice, word choice and directives (“send it to me”) 
suggested a possibility of irrational superiority.  For some reason, 
Ms. Chuang spoke as if she were defendant’s manager. 
 
(Dkt. No. 335-1 at 5-6).  And so on.  Defendant’s motion is frivolous and is DENIED.   
 The second “exhibit” filed in support of defendant’s motion is a copy of December 2023 
appellate brief wherein defendant challenged the validity of the presentence report prepared 
during his sentencing (Dkt. No. 335-2).  Defendant voluntarily dismissed that appeal in 
January 2024.  To the extent that defendant now attempts to revive these long-dismissed 
arguments, they are DENIED.  First, they are procedurally improper, and second, they are 
frivolous on the merits.   
*  *  * 
On February 7, 2025, defendant filed a motion titled “MOTION TO DISCUSS 
DISPENSING DECLARATORY AND MONETARY REMEDY TO DEFENDANT JESSE F. 
SWARTZ REGARDING STATE OF CALIFORNIA NEGLIGENCE, RELATED TORTS” 
(Dkt. No. 336).  Therein, defendant seeks “[f]inancial remedy, reputational relief and a 
preliminary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law document” as to various alleged wrongs 
committed by the state of California, its employees, contractors, “sub-entities,” and so forth 
Case 3:23-cr-00085-WHA     Document 338     Filed 02/12/25     Page 4 of 6
 
5 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
(ibid.).  This motion is, again, frivolous.  Defendant alleges that he has “endured more than 
60,000 tortious events . . . while he has resided in the State of California” (Dkt. No. 336-2).  
For example, defendant complains that a San Francisco Human Services Agency employee 
working to find him a job through the City’s “JobsNOW” program tried to find him a job, free 
of charge:   
 
Ms. Carter asked “When was the last time you were employed full 
time?” 
 
The answer, more than a decade ago, is due to the inactions and 
actions of the State, including and with specific attention paid to 
her department’s function and budget.  When Mr. Swartz 
responded, she said “Oh, then I’d definitely recommend you for 
[Program A].”  When Mr. Swartz inquired as to the types of 
positions in Program A, she responded that they were mostly 
clerical and basic functions, an insult to his experience and 
capability. 
 
Mr. Swartz has reason to believe her questions and 
recommendations are intentionally meant to “recast” Mr. Swartz as 
a lower-income worker, perhaps as part of a political party-wide 
effort, that political party the actual entity in control of State 
departments.  In other words, she is intentionally consuming his 
time and preventing, mostly through passivity or worthless 
recommendations, reclamation of a proper employment position 
based on his skills, experience and intellect. 
(Dkt. No. 336-2 at 2).  Next, a medical professional employed by the City attempted to provide 
defendant with mental health services, again free of charge:   
 
An African American male claiming to hold a Ph.D. or M.D., who 
maintained extremely poor communication skills and had an air of 
“street” to him, had the audacity to sit across from him and declare 
than Mr. Swartz had “a mental problem” and should apply for 
social security.  Mr. Swartz believes the man was a criminal, lied 
about his degree, was empowered by the City and County and via 
this empowerment was ordered to assist in executing a reputational 
“hit.”  The “hit” or “tear down” component included labeling Mr. 
Swartz mentally deficient. 
 
(ibid.).  All the while, defendant complains, the state has refused to fund his private litigation 
against a former employer and has failed to arrange “placement into a law firm or similar 
organization whereby he manages his cases through resolution” (id. at 5).  Other claims are 
more conspiratorial:  State employees monitor his devices, dose his food, subject him to 
Case 3:23-cr-00085-WHA     Document 338     Filed 02/12/25     Page 5 of 6
 
6 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
“olfactory annoyances” to “reduce [his] capacity to create quality work,” arrange for others to 
greet him using “intentional informality and condescension” (“Hey Bro”) to “lower his social 
skills,” and so forth (id. at 4-6).  The motion is frivolous; it is DENIED.   
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated:  February 12, 2025. 
  
WILLIAM ALSUP 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 3:23-cr-00085-WHA     Document 338     Filed 02/12/25     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight