Ezell v. McCann

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 6, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00729
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 TERRY EZELL, Case No. C23-729RSM

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL 10 v. 11 SHAWNA MCCANN, 12 13 Defendant.

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Terry Ezell’s Motion for Recusal. Dkt. 15 16 #8. Mr. Ezell states that the undersigned judge was involved in his prior criminal case and that 17 there is an ongoing appeal. The events of that criminal case are at issue in this civil action. Mr. 18 Ezell states he: 19 has a history with judge martinez dating back 19 years, judge 20 martinez has resided [sic] over two previous criminal cases involving plaintiff, in case #2:05-cr-00273-RSM-1. Plaintiff 21 received a 262 month sentence by judge martinez, and in the most 22 recent case #2:21-cr-00062-RSM-1. Plaintiff received a 121 month sentence by judge martinez, Plaintiff believes that his history with 23 judge martinez has allowed the judge to form an opinion of the plaintiff an [sic] as a result, plaintiff believes that the judge will 24 display a personal bias or prejudice concerning the proceedings. 25 Dkt. #8 at 3. Plaintiff argues that the undersigned’s rulings in those cases were in error and that 26 he was not given a fair sentence when compared with other co-conspirators. See id. at 4. 27 28 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in 1 2 any proceeding in which his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Federal judges 3 also disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have a personal bias or prejudice 4 concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 5 proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). However, “a judge’s prior adverse ruling is not 6 sufficient cause for recusal.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); see 7 8 also Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[t]o warrant 9 recusal, judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial source.”). 10 As the Court reads Mr. Ezell’s Motion, he is relying solely on this Court’s prior adverse 11 rulings as evidence of bias. This is insufficient to warrant recusal. See Studley, supra; Taylor, 12 13 supra. Mr. Ezell presents no reasonable basis to question impartiality. Accordingly, the 14 undersigned judge declines to voluntarily recuse himself. 15 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 16 finds and ORDERS: 17 1. Mr. Ezell’s Motion for Recusal, Dkt. #8, is DENIED. 18 19 2. In accordance with LCR 3(f), this Order is referred to the Honorable David G. 20 Estudillo for review of this decision. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of 21 this Order to Chief Judge Estudillo. 22 DATED this 6th day of July, 2023. 23 24 A 25 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28