Plaintiff Representing Herself Failed to Allege Jurisdiction

Adverse Rulings Alone Almost Never Establish Bias

Post number 5392

Posted on July 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In Decheri Hafer v. Farmers Insurance Agency, No. 1:22-cv-0808 KES SKO, United States District Court, E.D. California (June 30, 2026) DeCheri Hafer, proceeding pro se, sued Farmers Insurance Agency alleging perjury, fraud, insurance fraud, and breach of contract.

After screening, the magistrate judge found the complaint deficient and allowed amendment. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint objecting to all magistrate judges, while defendant moved to dismiss.

The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was wholly unsubstantiated. Plaintiff did not object and instead sought default. The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice, denied default, entered judgment, and closed the case.

More than three years later, Plaintiff moved under Rule 60(b)(4) to set aside the judgment and reopen the action and also sought default judgment.

LAW:

Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment for limited reasons, including when “the judgment is void”. A Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a reasonable time. Local Rule 230(j) also requires the moving party to identify new or different facts, circumstances, or grounds for reconsideration.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district court, and permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment “for the following reasons:”

1. mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
2. newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
3. fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or 4. misconduct by an opposing party;
5. the judgment is void;
6. the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
7. any other reason that justifies relief. [Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).]

A party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

A magistrate judge may handle nondispositive pretrial matters and may issue findings and recommendations on dispositive matters without the parties’ consent.

Judicial bias generally requires an extrajudicial source, and adverse rulings alone almost never establish bias. A district court may take matters under submission without oral argument, and there is no constitutional due process right to oral argument.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the magistrate judge lacked authority because Plaintiff had declined consent. Consent was unnecessary because the magistrate judge did not enter a dispositive order but only issued findings and recommendations within statutory authority.

The court also rejected Plaintiff’s bias allegations because she identified no extrajudicial source and relied only on disagreement with court rulings.

Finally, the court found Plaintiff’s claim of a closed trial unsupported because no trial occurred; the court merely resolved matters on the papers, which it had authority to do.

Plaintiff had an opportunity to object to the findings and recommendations but did not do so.

Because Plaintiff failed to show the judgment was void and waited more than three years to seek relief, the Rule 60(b)(4) motion was both meritless and untimely.

CONCLUSION:

The court denied Plaintiff’s motions to set aside the judgment and for relief under Rule 60(b)(4) because Plaintiff failed to show the judgment was void. Plaintiff also did not show that the request to set aside the judgment-filed more than three years after the Court entered judgment-was filed within a reasonable time. It terminated the default-judgment motions and related findings and recommendations as moot, ordered that the action remain closed, and stated that no further filings would be accepted in the closed case.

ZALMA OPINION

Another case proving the maxim that the person who represents him/herself has a fool for a client and an incompetent for his/her lawyer. Although an insurance agency can be sued for its torts to do so the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to support a cause of action. Plaintiff failed and the District Court followed the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed the case and plaintiff failed to appeal only to wait three years and bring a useless motion. The court's time was wasted by this pro-per plaintiff twice.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.