Plechner v. Haynes

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RICHARD PLECHNER, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05187-TMC- 11 Plaintiff, DWC 12 v. ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF 13 RONALD HAYNES, RECUSAL (DKT. NO. 23) 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Judge Christel’s denial (Dkt. No. 25) of Plaintiff’s 17 motion to disqualify (Dkt. No. 23). Local Civil Rule 3(f) provides that whenever a judge in this 18 District declines to voluntarily recuse themself from a case following a party’s motion to recuse 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, “he or she will direct the clerk to refer the 20 motion to the chief judge.” Accordingly, this Court now reviews Judge Christel’s decision not to 21 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 questions Judge Christel’s impartiality and seeks his recusal based on Plaintiff’s 11 assertion that Judge Christel presided over the criminal hearings of an individual, Andrew 12 Kowalczyk, with whom the Plaintiff had an “involvement.” (Dkt. No. 23 at 2.) In evaluating 13 Plaintiff’s motion, Judge Christel found that “[w]hile it appears the undersigned issued a search 14 warrant related to Mr. Kowalczyk in 2008, Petitioner has not shown that he was involved in 2008

15 matter, nor does the record indicate any involvement.” (Dkt. No. 25 at 3.) Accordingly, Judge 16 Christel concluded that Plaintiff did not make the required showing that a reasonable person 17 could question Judge Christel’s impartiality. Id. The Court agrees that a reasonable person 18 would not harbor doubts about Judge Christel’s impartiality based on Plaintiff’s ambiguous 19 account of his “involvement” with Kowalczyk. No facts are identified supporting Plaintiff’s 20 contention of impartiality. 21 Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS Judge Christel’s denial (Dkt. No. 25) of Plaintiff’s 22 motion to disqualify (Dkt. No. 23). 23 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2024. 24 1 a 2 David G. Estudillo 3 United States District Judge

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24