Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

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

8 BRENDA M. JOHNSON, CASE NO. C20-6058 RAJ

9 Plaintiff, ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER DECLINING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECUSAL 10 v.

11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

12 Defendant.

13 14 Pursuant to the local rules, this matter is before the Court for review of United States 15 District Court Judge Richard A. Jones’s order denying Plaintiff’s request that Judge Jones 16 voluntarily recuse himself from this case. Dkt. #50; LOCAL RULES W.D. WASH. LCR 3(f) (order 17 denying voluntary judicial recusal referred to the Chief Judge for review). Having reviewed the 18 matter, the Court affirms Judge Jones’s order. 19 A. Background 20 Plaintiff initiated this action to obtain judicial review of the United States Social Security 21 Administration’s (“SSA”) final decision denying her application for disability insurance and 22 supplemental security income benefits. Dkt. #8. On July 12, 2021, Judge Jones denied what he 23 interpreted as a motion for default judgment and a motion for a jury trial. Dkt. #38. In the same 24 order, Judge Jones set an amended briefing schedule. Id. 1 Plaintiff timely filed her opening brief, partially detailing her health profile and asserting 2 that the Defendant’s decision was made in error. Dkt. # 39 at 1–2. In addition, Plaintiff asserted 3 that she did not receive notice of the Court’s July 12 order and argued that the Court’s order was 4 biased and that denial of her motion for default judgment was an abuse of discretion. Id. at 2–3. 5 Plaintiff requested that Judge Jones recuse himself “upon investigation for obstruction of justice.”

6 Id. at 3. As her only explanation, Plaintiff indicated that she “ha[d] supplied the court with an 7 invoice from default judgment,” that “[u]pon default judgment a defendant can not [sic] answer 8 a compliant,” and that Defendant “did not answer the summons or complaint as of August 16, 9 2021.” Id. 10 Judge Jones denied Plaintiff’s motion, to the extent it sought recusal. Dkt. #50. He noted 11 that judicial decisions “almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion,” noted 12 that “Plaintiff “appear[ed] dissatisfied with the Court’s Order Denying Default Judgment, 13 Denying Jury Trial, and Amending Scheduling order,” and concluded that Plaintiff had not 14 demonstrated a basis for recusal. Id. at 1–2 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

15 B. Legal Standard 16 A “judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his 17 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 144. 18 This includes circumstances where the judge has “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, 19 or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” Id. at 20 § 455(b)(1). Recusal is appropriate if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would 21 conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic 22 Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). This is an objective inquiry concerned with 23 whether there is the appearance of bias, not whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 24 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980). 1 C. Discussion 2 Upon the Court’s review of Judge Jones’s order, the Court concludes that the order should 3 be affirmed. Plaintiff appears to perceive bias from the circumstances surrounding Judge Jones’s 4 order denying several of her motions. But Judge Jones’s order does not demonstrate bias and, to 5 the extent Plaintiff objects to the legal propriety of the order, Plaintiff may challenge that order

6 on appeal.1 7 D. Conclusion 8 Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds and ORDERS that Judge 9 Jones’s Order Declining Plaintiff’s Request for Recusal (Dkt. #50) is AFFIRMED. 10 DATED this 25th day of January, 2022. 11 12 A 13 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 14 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 Indeed, Plaintiff has sought to appeal this matter. See Dkt. #41. Upon the filing of Plaintiff’s 23 notice of appeal, the Court stayed this matter. Dkt. #44. Plaintiff’s appeal was docketed, Dkt. #42, but subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Dkt. #45, and returned to this Court, 24 Dkt. #47.