Baker v. Avenue5 Residential

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 JUSTIN BAKER, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01862-JHC 8

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 Plaintiff, DISQUALIFY 10 v. 11 AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL ET AL.,

12 Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the 15 undersigned judge from this matter. Dkt. # 31. The Court has reviewed the motion, the 16 remainder of the file, and the governing law. Being fully advised, for the reasons discussed 17 below, the Court DENIES the motion. 18 “Whenever a motion to recuse directed at a judge of this court is filed pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, the challenged judge will review the motion papers and decide 20 whether to recuse voluntarily.” LCR 3(f). “If the challenged judge decides not to voluntarily 21 recuse, he or she will direct the clerk to refer the motion to the chief judge.” Id. 22 A judge of the United States must recuse from any proceeding in which their 23 “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Federal judges must also 24 l disqualify themselves when they have “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 2 || personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” Jd. § 455(b)(1). 3 Plaintiff does not present any argument giving rise to a legitimate question of the 4 || undersigned judge’s impartiality. First, he does not point to any “extrajudicial source” of bias. ||See Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993). He makes the 6 conclusory claims, with no citation to the record, that there has been discrimination based on his 7 disabilities and because he is not “highly trained.” He also claims that the Court is biased g__ || because the undersigned has “a litigation background from New York in real estate.” But that is g ||untrue. Second, he bases his argument on adverse rulings by the Court. But “[a]dverse rulings 10 do not constitute the requisite bias.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983). 11 The undersigned makes rulings in each case based on the issues presented by the parties 12 or on sua sponte review and has no personal bias or reason to be partial to one side or the other 13 in this matter. Plaintiff has not shown that a reasonable person could question the undersigned’s 14 impartiality. The undersigned will not recuse himself voluntarily from this case. 15 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion. Also, the Court further DIRECTS the Clerk 16 || to refer the motion to Chief Judge David Estudillo for further review. 17 Dated this 21st day of March, 2025. 18 an 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24