Smith v. Snohomish County

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 TROY T. SMITH, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00288-TLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF 12 v. RECUSAL (DKT. NO. 61) 13 SNOHOMISH COUNTY et al., 14 Defendant. 15

16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s Order on 18 Recusal. (Dkt. No. 61.) Judge Fricke’s Order is referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local 19 Civil Rule 3(f) which provides that whenever a judge in this District declines to voluntarily 20 recuse his or herself from a case following a party’s motion to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, “he or she will direct the clerk to refer the motion to the chief judge.” 22 LCR 3(f). 23 24 1 Motions for recusal are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Recusal is 2 required if a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or if the judge harbors personal 3 bias or prejudice against a party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). Such bias or prejudice must derive 4 from an extrajudicial source. Agha-Khan v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 2022 WL

5 501564, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2022); Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 6 1984). Under both 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal of a federal judge is 7 appropriate if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 8 judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 9 626 (9th Cir. 1993). This is an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance 10 of bias, not whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 11 1992). 12 All of Plaintiff’s complaints against Judge Fricke arise out of Judge Fricke’s rulings in 13 this matter: “Magistrate [Judge] Fricke just repeated what the opposing side said” (Dkt. No. 60 at 14 3); “I will list the mistakes and errors Magistrate [Judge] Fricke included in her dismissal to

15 demonstrate that Magistrate [Judge] was biased” (id.); “Magistrate [Judge] Fricke also 16 contradicts herself in the dismissal” (id. at 4); [t]here are too many inaccuracies in Magistrate 17 [Judge] Fricke’s dismissal to list them all” (id. at 5.); and “[n]one of the grounds for dismissal 18 that Magistrate [Judge] Fricke is using is (sic) based on logic or law” id. at 6). Thus, Plaintiff 19 asks “this case to be seen by another Judge, not a magistrate [judge.]” (Id.) 20 Adverse rulings cannot serve as the basis for a recusal motion. United States v. Studley, 21 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (“alleged prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source; a 22 judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal”); United States v. Nelson, 718 23 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Adverse rulings do not constitute the requisite bias.”).

24 1 Plaintiff has presented no arguments or evidence that could reasonably call Judge 2 Fricke’s impartiality into question. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS Judge Fricke’s denial 3 (Dkt. No. 61) of Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (Dkt. No. 60). 4

5 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2025. 6 A 7 David G. Estudillo 8 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24