Sahm v. Ali

W.D. Washington

Sahm v. Ali

DecidedSeptember 28, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-01131

StatusUnknown

This text of Sahm v. Ali (Sahm v. Ali) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sahm v. Ali, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 TERI KEALOHA SAHM, Case No. C22-1131 RSM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 10 RECUSE 11 v.

12 KARIM ALI, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Teri Kealoha Sahm’s Motion for 15 16 Reassignment of Judge and Expedited Injunction. Dkt. #11. The Court considers the motion as 17 a motion to recuse. Ms. Sahm states that the undersigned judge presided in a case she 18 previously filed and issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Id. at 1–2 (citing Sahm 19 v. Onslow Bay Financial LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02090-RSM). 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in 21 22 any proceeding in which his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Federal judges 23 also disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have a personal bias or prejudice 24 concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 25 proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). However, “a judge’s prior adverse ruling is not 26 sufficient cause for recusal.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); see 27 28 also Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (“To warrant recusal, 1 2 judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial source.”). 3 As the Court reads Ms. Sahm’s Motion, she is relying solely on this Court’s prior 4 adverse ruling in a separate matter as evidence of bias. This is insufficient to warrant recusal. 5 See Studley, supra; Taylor, supra. Ms. Sahm presents no reasonable basis to question 6 impartiality. Accordingly, the undersigned judge declines to voluntarily recuse himself. 7 8 Ms. Sahm also seeks an expedited review of her requested injunction (Dkt. #8), which 9 is currently noted for consideration on September 30, 2022. See Dkt. #11 at 2. The Court 10 denies Ms. Sahm’s request for expedited review as her motion will be ripe in two days’ time 11 anyway. 12 13 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 14 finds and ORDERS: 15 1. Ms. Sahm’s Motion for Reassignment of Judge and Expedited Injunction (Dkt. 16 #1) is DENIED. 17 2. In accordance with LCR 3(f), this Order is referred to the Honorable David G. 18 19 Estudillo, the chief judge in this District, for review of this decision. The Clerk 20 is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Judge Estudillo. 21

22 DATED this 28th day of September 2022. 23 24 A 25 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 TERI KEALOHA SAHM, Case No. C22-1131 RSM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 10 RECUSE 11 v.

12 KARIM ALI, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Teri Kealoha Sahm’s Motion for 15 16 Reassignment of Judge and Expedited Injunction. Dkt. #11. The Court considers the motion as 17 a motion to recuse. Ms. Sahm states that the undersigned judge presided in a case she 18 previously filed and issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Id. at 1–2 (citing Sahm 19 v. Onslow Bay Financial LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02090-RSM). 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in 21 22 any proceeding in which his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Federal judges 23 also disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have a personal bias or prejudice 24 concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 25 proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). However, “a judge’s prior adverse ruling is not 26 sufficient cause for recusal.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); see 27 28 also Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (“To warrant recusal, 1 2 judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial source.”). 3 As the Court reads Ms. Sahm’s Motion, she is relying solely on this Court’s prior 4 adverse ruling in a separate matter as evidence of bias. This is insufficient to warrant recusal. 5 See Studley, supra; Taylor, supra. Ms. Sahm presents no reasonable basis to question 6 impartiality. Accordingly, the undersigned judge declines to voluntarily recuse himself. 7 8 Ms. Sahm also seeks an expedited review of her requested injunction (Dkt. #8), which 9 is currently noted for consideration on September 30, 2022. See Dkt. #11 at 2. The Court 10 denies Ms. Sahm’s request for expedited review as her motion will be ripe in two days’ time 11 anyway. 12 13 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 14 finds and ORDERS: 15 1. Ms. Sahm’s Motion for Reassignment of Judge and Expedited Injunction (Dkt. 16 #1) is DENIED. 17 2. In accordance with LCR 3(f), this Order is referred to the Honorable David G. 18 19 Estudillo, the chief judge in this District, for review of this decision. The Clerk 20 is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Judge Estudillo. 21

22 DATED this 28th day of September 2022. 23 24 A 25 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sahm v. Ali, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sahm-v-ali-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack