Collett v. Mason County

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MATHEW COLLETT, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05654-TMC- 11 DWC Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL (DKT. NO. 118) OF MOTION FOR 13 MASON COUNTY et al., RECUSAL (DKT. NO. 112) 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Judge David W. Christel’s order (Dkt. No. 118) 17 denying Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (Dkt. No. 112). Local Civil Rule 3(f) provides that 18 whenever a judge in this District declines to voluntarily recuse from a case following a party’s 19 motion to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, “he or she will direct the clerk 20 to refer the motion to the chief judge.” 21 Motions for recusal are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Recusal is 22 required if a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or if the judge has a personal 23 bias or prejudice concerning a party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). In addition, recusal is required 24 1 pursuant to § 144 when a party “files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom 2 the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any 3 adverse party.” 4 Critically, bias or prejudice sufficient to warrant recusal must derive from an extrajudicial

5 source. Agha-Khan v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 2022 WL 501564, at *1 (9th Cir. 6 Feb. 18, 2022); Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984). In other words, prior 7 adverse rulings do not justify recusal. Id.; United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 8 1983). 9 Plaintiff argues Judge Christel has shown bias or prejudice because Judge Christel “has 10 not acted fairly in this case” and “has shown a tradition of being bias[ed] towards plaintiff and 11 any and all motions filed by the plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 112 at 1.) Plaintiff does not identify any 12 extrajudicial source of bias or prejudice. (See id.) As Plaintiff’s motion exclusively takes issue 13 with the manner in which Judge Christel has presided over this case, recusal is not warranted. 14 See Mayes, 729 F.2d at 607; Nelson, 718 F.2d at 321.

15 The Court accordingly AFFIRMS Judge Christel’s denial (Dkt. No. 118) of Plaintiff’s 16 motion to recuse (Dkt. No. 112). 17 Dated this 11th day of March 2024. 18 A 19 David G. Estudillo 20 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24