Bryan v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RICHARD WESLEY BRYAN, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-06042-KKE-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF 12 v. VOLUNTARY RECUSAL (DKT. NO. 16) 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge David W. 17 Christel’s order declining to voluntarily recuse himself from this case. (Dkt. No. 16.) Local 18 Civil Rule 3(f) provides that whenever a judge in this District declines to voluntarily recuse 19 themself from a case following a party’s motion to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 20 U.S.C. § 455, “he or she will direct the clerk to refer the motion to the chief judge.” 21 Plaintiff has not filed a motion asking Judge Christel to recuse himself. Nevertheless, 22 several of Plaintiff’s filings contain statements that appear to question Judge Christel’s 23 24 1 impartiality (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 14) and Judge Christel referred this matter to the undersigned out 2 of an abundance of caution. (Dkt. No. 16 at 1.) 3 Recusal is required if a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or if the 4 judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). Critically,

5 bias or prejudice sufficient to warrant recusal must derive from an extrajudicial source. Agha- 6 Khan v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 2022 WL 501564, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2022); 7 Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984). In other words, prior adverse rulings do 8 not suffice as a basis on which to grant recusal. Id.; United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 9 (9th Cir. 1983). 10 On December 29, 2023, Judge Christel issued an order declining to serve Plaintiff’s 11 complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to amend to cure certain deficiencies in the complaint by 12 January 29, 2024. (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff objected to Judge Christel’s order and requested two 13 extensions of time to file his amended complaint, which Judge Christel granted. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 14 12, 14.) In his objection to Judge Christel’s order, Plaintiff argued he had sufficiently plead his

15 causes of action and that it was therefore not necessary for him to amend his complaint. (Dkt. 16 No. 11.) Plaintiff stated Judge Christel “intentionally misrepresented” his claims and engaged in 17 obstruction of justice, obstruction of process, “corrupt conduct”, “misprision”, “misprision of 18 felony”, and “misprision of treason.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff made similar allegations in his motions 19 for an extension of time, accusing Judge Christel of “intentional subterfuge” and an unspecified 20 conflict of interest. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 14.) 21 Plaintiff’s allegations all stem from his disagreement with Judge Christel’s order 22 declining to serve Plaintiff’s complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to amend. However, bias and 23 prejudice sufficient to warrant recusal does not arise from a judge’s prior rulings. Mayes, 729

24 1 F.2d at 607; Nelson, 718 F.2d at 321. As Plaintiff has not identified an extrajudicial source of 2 bias or prejudice, the Court AFFIRMS Judge Christel’s order declining to voluntarily recuse 3 himself. (Dkt. No. 16.) 4

5 Dated this 26th day of February, 2024. 6 A 7 David G. Estudillo 8 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24