Dixon v. Ennis

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 25, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01171
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 RYAN ADAM DIXON, 9

Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 21-cv-01171-RAJ v. 11 ORDER ON REVIEW DECLINING LEA ENNES, et al., TO RECUSE 12 Defendants. 13

14 On December 2, 2021, the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez issued an Order 15 declining to recuse himself in response to Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify. Dkt. # 13. In 16 accordance with the Western District’s Local Rules, the Order was referred to this Court 17 for review. See LCR 3(e). 18 A judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which 19 his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Additionally, 20 federal judges shall disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have a personal 21 bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts 22 concerning the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, 23 “whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and 24 sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias 25 or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed 26 no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” “[A] 27 1 judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” United States v. Studley, 2 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 3 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (“To warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem from an 4 extrajudicial source.”). 5 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff argues Chief Judge Martinez 6 is biased because he ruled against Plaintiff’s motion for free access. Dkt. #12 at 2. 7 Dissatisfaction with prior judicial rulings is not sufficient cause for recusal. See Studley, 8 783 F.2d at 939. Judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial source. Taylor, 993 F.2d at 9 712. 10 Plaintiff does not accuse Chief Judge Martinez of having a financial interest in the 11 outcome of this case or of knowing Defendants personally. Plaintiff only accuses Chief 12 Judge Martinez of improperly ruling against his motion, and then suggests his role as 13 Chief Judge means that all other Western District judges are “subordinate” and cannot 14 fairly rule on this motion to disqualify. Dkt. #15 at 7. Plaintiff fails to set forth a basis to 15 reasonably question Judge Martinez’s impartiality. 16 Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Chief Judge Martinez’s 17 refusal to recuse himself from this matter and denial of Plaintiff’s Motion is AFFIRMED. 18 The Clerk is directed to refer this case back to Chief Judge Martinez.

19 DATED this 25th day of July, 2022. 20 A 21 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge 24

25 26 27