Smith v. Legacy Partners Inc

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ADDIE SMITH, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00629-JHC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND/OR v. RECUSE AND REFERRING THE MOTION 10 TO THE CHIEF JUDGE LEGACY PARTNERS INC. ET AL., 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Addie Smith’s motion to 15 disqualify and/or recuse the undersigned judge. Dkt. 99. The Court has considered the motion 16 and DENIES it for the reasons set forth below. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to refer 17 the motion to Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez for further review. 18 “Whenever a motion to recuse directed at a judge of this court is filed pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, the challenged judge will review the motion papers and decide 20 whether to recuse voluntarily.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 3(f). “If the challenged judge 21 decides not to voluntarily recuse, he or she will direct the clerk to refer the motion to the chief 22 judge, or the chief judge’s designee.” Id. “The substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455 is the same: Whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the 24 1 facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United 2 States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and alterations 3 omitted). This is an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not

4 whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir.1992); United 5 States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir.1980). 6 None of Plaintiff’s arguments give rise to a legitimate question of the undersigned 7 judge’s impartiality. Plaintiff seeks to disqualify or recuse the undersigned judge on the grounds 8 that “[she] has had experience with Asian judges taking the side of her employers in the past.” 9 Dkt. 99 at 3. She expresses her disagreement with several orders issued in this case by 10 Magistrate Judge Brian Tsuchida, Id at 4-7; 12-13, and additionally references a Bellevue 11 District Court judge’s denial of her petition for an order of protection in 2019. Id at 3. However, 12 she does not specifically argue that any of the undersigned judge’s prior orders in her case

13 display prejudice against her, nor does she raise any claims of personal or extrajudicial bias that 14 would meet the standard laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455. The only connection 15 she makes between the undersigned judge and the two aforementioned judges is that they are all 16 of Asian descent, thereby seeming to imply that the undersigned judge is biased against her 17 based on this fact alone. Id. This claim does not meet the objective “reasonable person” 18 standard established by the Ninth Circuit in McTiernan, Preston, and Conforte. 19 The undersigned makes rulings in each case based upon the issues presented by the 20 parties or upon sua sponte review by the Court and has no personal bias or reason to be partial to 21 one side or the other in this matter. Plaintiff has not shown that a reasonable person could 22 question this Court’s impartiality. Accordingly, the undersigned will not recuse himself 23 voluntarily from this case. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify 24 l and/or recuse and DIRECTS the Clerk to refer this order and Plaintiff's motion to Chief Judge 2 || Ricardo S. Martinez. 3 Dated this 5th day of May, 2022. 4 5 CJok. 4. Chur John H. Chun 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND/OR RECUSE AND REFERRING THE