Ma v. Department of Education

Opinion

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

8 ROLAND MA, CASE NO. C19-1112 JCC

9 Plaintiff, ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 10 v.

11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN 12 CALIFORNIA,

13 Defendants.

14 15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Prior Rulings and Judge’s 16 Disqualification Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Dkt. #45. The Honorable United States District 17 Judge John C. Coughenour denied Plaintiff’s request that he disqualify himself. Dkt. #54. 18 Pursuant to the Court’s Local Civil Rules, Judge Coughenour referred the matter to the 19 Undersigned. Dkt. #54 at 4; LCR 3(f). 20 A “judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his 21 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Federal judges also must 22 disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have “a personal bias or prejudice concerning 23 a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 24 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Recusal of a federal judge is appropriate if “a reasonable person with 1 knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 2 questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). This is an 3 objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not whether there is 4 bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. 5 Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980).

6 Plaintiff has been involved in at least three cases before Judge Coughenour. Dkt. #45 at 7 2. His motion conveys a subjective perception of bias because of Judge Coughenour’s prior 8 rulings. As “evidence” of bias, Plaintiff points only to an internet posting he attributes to an 9 attorney’s spouse and some vague “proof” that an attorney had a goal of setting a high amount 10 of bail in some proceeding. Dkt. #45 at 2–3. But Plaintiff does not point to anything indicating 11 judicial bias and does not point to any action taken by Judge Coughenour outside of his judicial 12 role. “[A] judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” United States v. 13 Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 14 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (“To warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial

15 source.”). 16 Plaintiff points to nothing setting forth a reasonable basis upon which Judge 17 Coughenour’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Accordingly, the Court finds and 18 ORDERS that Judge Coughenour’s Order (Dkt. #54) declining to disqualify himself is 19 AFFIRMED. 20 DATED this 16th day of April, 2020. 21 22 A 23 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 24 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE