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 AFFIRMING DENIAL OF 12 v. RECUSAL (DKT. NO. 31) 13 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Judge Lauren King’s denial (Dkt. No. 37) of 17 Plaintiff’s motion for her recusal. (Dkt. No. 31.) Local Civil Rule 3(f) provides that whenever a 18 judge in this District declines to voluntarily recuse his or herself from a case following a party’s 19 motion to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, “he or she will direct the clerk 20 to refer the motion to the chief judge.” Accordingly, this Court now reviews Judge King’s 21 decision not to recuse. 22 Motions for recusal are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Recusal is 23 required if a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or if the judge harbors personal 24 1 bias or prejudice against a party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). Such bias or prejudice must derive 2 from an extrajudicial source. Agha-Khan v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 2022 WL 3 501564, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2022); Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 4 1984). Under both 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal of a federal judge is

5 appropriate if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 6 judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 7 626 (9th Cir. 1993). This is an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance 8 of bias, not whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 9 1992). 10 Plaintiff seeks Judge King’s recusal because he did not receive “any responses” from the 11 Court after filing his amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 31 at 1–2.) However, as Judge King 12 correctly notes, there is nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Civil Rules 13 that requires the Court to respond to a plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff also makes assertions 14 regarding several “semi-related” cases that are difficult to understand and do not appear to

15 support his motion for recusal. (Id. at 2.) Finally, Plaintiff’s assertion that he has not received 16 requested subpoenas appears to be incorrect. See August 21, 2024 Minute Entry; February 5, 17 2025 Minute Entry. 18 Plaintiff has presented no arguments or evidence that could reasonably call Judge King’s 19 impartiality into question. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS Judge King’s denial (Dkt. No. 37) 20 of Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (Dkt. No. 31). 21 22 23

24 1 Dated this 24th day of February, 2025. 2 A 3 David G. Estudillo 4 Chief United States District Judge

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24