United States v. Newby

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 6, 2020
• Docket: 3:18-cv-05978
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. C18-5978RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 PERCY F NEWBY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 15 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Newby’s second Motion to Recuse/for 16 Disqualification [Dkt. # 88]. Newby complains that the United States filed a “motion for leave to 17 file an overlength brief” [Dkt. # 77] but that, because Newby does not receive electronic notice 18 of such filings, the Court granted the request before Newby had a chance to oppose it. Newby 19 has since filed a response to the request, which, like the current motion, focusses solely on the 20 timing of the request. He does not articulate any basis for denying a common (and routinely 21 granted) same-day motion for leave to file an over-length brief. [See Dkt. # 82]. 22 23 24 1 In any event, Newby again asks the Court to recuse itself (or for Chief Judge Martinez to 2 disqualify it) based on the “bias” evident in the Court’s granting the Plaintiff’s motion for leave 3 to file an overlength brief. 4 A federal judge should recuse himself if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the 5 facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C.

6 § 144; see also 28 U.S.C. § 455; Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 7 1993). This objective inquiry is concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not 8 whether there is bias in fact. See Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1992); see 9 also United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980). In the absence of specific 10 allegations of personal bias, prejudice, or interest, neither prior adverse rulings of a judge nor his 11 participation in a related or prior proceeding is sufficient” to establish bias. Davis v. Fendler, 12 650 F.2d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 1981). Judicial rulings alone “almost never” constitute a valid 13 basis for a bias or partiality motion. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). 14 Under the Local Rules of this District, a motion for recusal is addressed first to the

15 presiding judge, and if the judge does not recuse voluntarily, the matter is referred to the chief 16 judge for review. See LCR 3(e). 17 Newby’s Motion is based only on a ruling made in this case, which is not a valid basis for 18 a motion to recuse. And the ruling itself is utterly benign—permission to file an overlength brief. 19 Newby is free to file an overlength response, and is encouraged to do so in a timely manner. The 20 Court will not recuse itself from this case voluntarily based on the claim that the Court’s prior 21 ruling is evidence of bias or a lack of impartiality. 22 23 24 1 Under LCR 3(e), this Matter is REFERRED to Chief Judge Martinez for review. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated this 6th day of January, 2020. 4 A 5 Ronald B. Leighton 6 United States District Judge

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24