Green v. United States of America

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

13 14 CAROLYN SIOUX GREEN, Case No. 2:21-cv-1276-RAJ-DWC 15 Plaintiff, ORDER 16 v. 17 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 18 Defendants. 19

20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for recusal. Dkt. # 41. The 22 District Court had referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. 23 Christel. Dkt. # 8. In the pending motion, Plaintiff requests recusal of both Judge 24 Christel and the undersigned. Judge Christel declined to recuse himself and referred the 25 motion to the undersigned for a decision on the request to recuse himself. Dkt. # 44. 26 Having considered the issue and prior related briefing, the undersigned declines to recuse 27 1 himself and refers the motion to the chief judge or the chief judge’s designee pursuant to 2 the Local Civil Rules. See Local Rule W.D. Wash. 3(f). 4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a “judge of the United States shall disqualify 5 himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See 6 also Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that 7 recusal of a federal judge is appropriate if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the 8 facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned”). 9 Federal judges must also disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have “a 10 personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed 11 evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). 12 A determination of impartiality or bias is based on an objective inquiry into 13 whether there is the appearance of bias, not whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. 14 United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 15 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980). The inquiry is not driven by “[c]onclusions, rumors, beliefs and 16 opinions” as those “are not sufficient to form a basis for disqualification.” United States 17 v. Burger, 964 F.2d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted); see also United 18 States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 287 (4th Cir. 1998) (“a reasonable outside observer is 19 not a person unduly suspicious or concerned about a trivial risk that a judge may be 20 biased”). Instead, a reasonable person is “someone who ‘understand[s] all the relevant 21 facts’ and has examined the record and law.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 22 914 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting LoCascio v. United States, 473 F.3d 493, 496 (2d Cir. 23 2007)). 24 When a motion to recuse is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, 25 “the challenged judge will review the motion papers and decide whether to recuse 26 voluntarily.” Local Rule W.D. Wash. 3(f). If the judge decides not to recuse, the judge 27 will direct the clerk to refer the motion to the chief judge. Id. 2 Plaintiff seeks recusal of Judge Christel and the undersigned with the objective of 3 “reassigning to the judge with the most time on the sufficiently similar and substantially 4 interconnected related cases pursuant to LCR 3(g), for the Hon. Chief Judge Martinez to 5 make a fair determination.” Dkt. # 41 at 2. The Court had previously adopted Judge 6 Christel’s report and recommendation, Dkt. # 21, interpreting Plaintiff’s prior motion for 7 recusal, Dkt. # 12, as a motion for reassignment based on Plaintiff’s arguments and cited 8 statutes. Dkt. # 40. In the prior recusal motion, Plaintiff moved to reassign the case to 9 the Honorable Benjamin H. Settle or the Honorable James L. Robart based on their 10 familiarity with Plaintiff’s prior cases. Dkt. # 12 at 1-2. Because both cases had been 11 dismissed and closed, the Court found that the above-captioned case is not sufficiently 12 similar to the prior cases filed by Plaintiff under Local Civil Rule 3(g)(4). Dkt. # 21 at 3. 13 The Court therefore concluded that reassignment was unwarranted and denied the 14 request. Dkt. # 21 at 3; Dkt. # 40. 15 In the pending motion, Plaintiff again seeks to reassign the case and recuse both 16 Judge Christel and the undersigned. Dkt. # 41. With respect to the undersigned, Plaintiff 17 provides no facts or claims to support allegations of impartiality or bias. Plaintiff claims 18 that she has “legal standing for an authentic genuine complaint filed in this Court where 19 the current judges show to be bias [sic] or prejudice towards a legitimate Plaintiff filing 20 in good faith . . .” Id. at 1-2 (emphasis original). Beyond this statement, she fails to set 21 forth any basis for disqualification based on impartiality, personal bias, prejudice 22 concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts related to the 23 proceeding. For these reasons, the undersigned finds no reasonable basis for a voluntary 24 recusal and thus declines to recuse himself. 26 For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned declines to voluntarily recuse himself. 27 In accordance with the Court’s Local Civil Rules, see Local Rule W.D. Wash. 3(f), the 1 Court directs the Clerk to refer the motion to the Honorable Chief United States District 2 Judge Ricardo S. Martinez or the Chief’s designee.

3 DATED this 28th day of February, 2022. 4 A 5 6 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 7 United States District Judge 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27