J.S. v. Kent School District

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 J.S., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01060-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING VOLUNTARY 12 v. RECUSAL 13 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff J.S.’s “Response to Disqualification 17 of Judge Laura [sic] King,” Dkt. No. 31, which the Court construes as a motion for recusal.1 18 Having considered the request and the remainder of the record, the undersigned judge declines to 19 voluntarily recuse herself from this case. 20 Under the Local Civil Rules of this Court, whenever a motion to recuse is filed pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, “the challenged judge will review the motion papers and 22

23 1 J.S. also seeks “30 days to respond with a list” and to “initiate a[n] investigation” regarding potential wrongdoing so the Court “can make an informed decision[] on what is transpiring in this case and at your court[.]” Id. at 2. Because 24 J.S. has seemingly moved for disqualification, the Court considers his request now rather than waiting. 1 decide whether to recuse voluntarily.” LCR 3(f). If the challenged judge decides not to recuse, “he 2 or she will direct the clerk to refer the motion to the chief judge, or the chief judge’s designee.” Id. 3 “The recusal statute does not provide a vehicle for parties to shop among judges” after the presiding 4 judge has issued an unfavorable ruling. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist.

5 No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296, 1302 (8th Cir. 1988); see also King v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of 6 Cal., 16 F.3d 992, 993 (9th Cir. 1994). 7 In his filing, J.S. states that he has not received “any responses” from the Court since he 8 filed his amended complaint. Dkt. No. 31 at 1–2. However, nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil 9 Procedure or the Local Civil Rules requires the Court to respond to a plaintiff’s complaint. J.S. 10 also discusses other seemingly unrelated cases that were not before this Court and therefore do not 11 support his request for recusal. Id. at 2. He also notes that he has not received requested subpoenas, 12 id., but the Court has issued those subpoenas, see August 21, 2024 Minute Entry; February 5, 2025 13 Minute Entry. 14 Because there is no basis to find that the undersigned judge’s impartiality might reasonably

15 be questioned or to find that there is an appearance of bias in this case, and because none of the 16 other conditions for recusal laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 455 are met, the undersigned judge declines to 17 recuse herself from this case. The undersigned judge DIRECTS the Clerk to refer the Motion to 18 Chief Judge Estudillo in accordance with Local Civil Rule 3(f). 19 Dated this 18th day of February, 2025. 20 A 21 Lauren King United States District Judge 22 23 24