Rogers v. King County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01034
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RAY CLARENCE ROGERS, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01034-DGE-GJL 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER ON THIRD MOTION TO 12 RECUSE KING COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s third motion for the undersigned to recuse 16 himself from this case (the “Motion”). See Dkt. 184. The undersigned DECLINES to recuse 17 himself voluntarily and REFERS the matter to the Chief Judge for consideration. 18 I. DISCUSSION 19 “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in 20 any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A 21 judge also shall disqualify himself where the judge meets one of five grounds specified in § 22 455(b). “Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and 23 sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or 24 1 prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further 2 therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 144. 3 Local Civil Rule 3(f) additionally provides that— 4 Whenever a motion to recuse directed at a judge of this court is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, the challenged judge will review the motion 5 papers and decide whether to recuse voluntarily. If the challenged judge decides not to voluntarily recuse, he or she will direct the clerk to refer the motion to the 6 chief judge, or the chief judge’s designee. If the motion is directed at the chief judge, or if the chief judge or the chief judge’s designee is unavailable, the clerk 7 shall refer it to the active judge with the highest seniority.

8 Under both 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal of a federal judge is appropriate 9 if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 10 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 11 (9th Cir. 1993). This is an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance of 12 bias, not whether there is bias in fact. See Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 13 1992); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980). 14 Plaintiff asserts that the Court “cannot act in an impartial manner” because the Court 15 recommended granting certain portions of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 184 at 3 (citing 16 Dkt. 166 at 9–18). Plaintiff takes issue with the Court’s finding that, although Plaintiff pled a 17 valid constitutional claim against Defendants Verhelst and Skinner because they were likely 18 aware of (and responsible for) poor ventilation in Plaintiff’s unit, the same claim failed against 19 Defendant Curtis. Id.; Dkt. 166 at 10. 20 In its Report and Recommendation, the Court acknowledged Curtis’ role as a supervisor, 21 his oversight of the “classification department,” which receives grievances from inmates, and his 22 responsibility in transferring Plaintiff to the unit at issue here. Dkt. 166 at 7, 10. The Court 23 nevertheless found that Curtis’ supervisory role was insufficient to establish liability. Id. at 10. 24 1 The Court pointed to a lack of facts showing that Curtis was aware of complaints about poor 2 ventilation, or that Verhelst or another officer indeed notified him of the issue. Id. Plaintiff cites 3 paragraphs in the Amended Complaint where he alleges “it can be inferred” Curtis was aware of 4 the ventilation issues because of Curtis’ position as a supervisor. Dkt. 184 at 2–3 (citing Dkt. 116

5 at 21). That the Court declined to make such an inference, however, is no indication of bias 6 against Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff’s arguments alleging bias and its appearance are unwarranted. 7 II. CONCLUSION 8 The undersigned DECLINES to recuse himself from the matter. However, the Motion 9 (Dkt. 184) is REFERRED to Chief Judge David G. Estudillo for review. The Clerk is directed 10 to place the Motion for the recusal of the undersigned on Chief Judge Estudillo’s calendar. 11 Dated this 12th day of March, 2025. 12 A 13 14 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24