Johnson v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 BRENDA M JOHNSON, CASE NO. C21-5242 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse. (Dkt. No. 14.) 17 Having reviewed the Motion and the relevant record, the Court DENIES the Motion. 18 “[I]n the absence of a legitimate reason to recuse himself, ‘a judge should participate in 19 cases assigned.’” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Maier v. 20 Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). But “a judge may not sit in cases in which his 21 ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)). “If it is a close 22 case, the balance tips in favor of recusal.” Id. 23 24 1 Plaintiff’s Motion identifies two grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b): (1) 2 recusal because of a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of 3 disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” and (2) “Where [the judge] has served in 4 governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material

5 witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the 6 particular case in controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1), (b)(3). 7 The Court is not convinced the recusal is appropriate. First, Plaintiff seeks recusal given 8 the Court’s knowledge of another matter filed by Plaintiff. (See Mot. at 1 (citing Johnson v. 9 Electronic Transaction Consultants LLC, C20-5857 MJP).) The Court is aware of that matter and 10 notes that it dismissed that action for failure to prosecute. (See Johnson, C20-5857 MJP, Dkt. 11 No. 14.) But the Court finds no basis to conclude that it has any “personal knowledge” of the 12 facts presented in the present case by its mere oversight of Plaintiff’s prior case. Second, Plaintiff 13 appears to seek recusal on the theory that the undersigned was a lawyer of the public agency she 14 has sued. (See Mot. at 1.) This is factually incorrect, and no evidence has been submitted to

15 sustain this claim. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion to Recuse. 16 In accordance with the Local Rules, this matter is referred to U.S. Chief District Judge 17 Ricardo S. Martinez for review of Plaintiff’s recusal request and this Court’s denial of that 18 request. 19 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and all counsel. 20 Dated August 10, 2021. A 21 22 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 23 24