Johnson et al v. HAF et al
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER: The filing captioned "Void Judgements Per Maxim 19: 15 U.S.C. Prim-A-Facie As Per Violated Maxim 23: Failure to Provide Oath of Office When Requested (Doc 20) Plaintiff's Request New, Lawful Judge: Failure to Act Upon Unrebutted Affidavits Of Truth (Doc 19) For Opinion (Doc 23 & 24)," ECF No. 25 , which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration and a motion for recusal, is DENIED. Signed on 10/25/2024 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se parties on 10/25/2024.) (ck)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
STEVEN ROBERT JOHNSON;
ALEX ROBERT HARVEY;
KATHRYN ANN HARVEY,
Civ. No. 6:24-cv-01141-AA
Plaintiffs,
OPINION & ORDER
v.
HAF; HUD; ROCKET
MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
AIKEN, District Judge.
This case comes before the Court on a motion filed by Plaintiffs and captioned
“Void Judgement Per Maxim 19: 15 U.S.C. Prim-A-Facie As Per Violated Maxim 23:
Failure to Provide Oath of Office When Requested (Doc 20) Plaintiff’s Request New,
Lawful Judge: Failure to Act Upon Unrebutted Affidavits Of Truth (Doc 19) For
Opinion (Doc 23 & 24).” ECF No. 25. The Court construes this filing as a motion for
reconsideration and as a motion to recuse. So construed, the Motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
On September 5, 2024, the Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant Rocket Mortgage. ECF No. 18. The Court gave Plaintiffs thirty days in
which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an
Page 1 –OPINION & ORDER
amended complaint within the allotted time would result in a judgment of dismissal
without further notice.
In the following weeks, Plaintiffs filed a series of documents captioned a
“Affidavit of Truth 1 Affidavit of Truth 2,” ECF No. 19, “Rebuttal to Opinion & Order:
Disregard of Executive Level Government Orders,” ECF No. 20, and “Plaintiff’s
Jurisdictional Proof of American State National Status as Living Men and Woman,”
ECF No. 22. None of these documents constituted an amended pleadings and so, on
October 9, 2024, the Court ordered the case dismissed and entered a final judgment
of dismissal. ECF Nos. 23, 24.
Plaintiffs’ latest filing, ECF No. 25, appears to seek to set aside the judgment
and seeks the recusal of this Court. The Court will address the motion to recuse first.
I.
Motion to Recuse
Plaintiffs have not identified the statutory authority under which they move
for recusal. Two federal statutes govern recusal and disqualification: 28 U.S.C. § 144
and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 144 provides that a judge shall be disqualified where
she has a “personal bias or prejudice either against [a party] or in favor of any adverse
party[.]” See United States v. Heffington, 952 F.2d 275, 278 (9th Cir. 1991). Under §
144, the party moving for recusal must file a timely and legally sufficient affidavit
stating “the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists” and must
include certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
§ 144. Conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a request for recusal on
grounds of bias or prejudice. United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d
Page 2 –OPINION & ORDER
564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995). Similarly, § 455 provides that federal judges must recuse
themselves “in any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might be reasonably
questioned,” including if they have “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1); see Heffington, 952 F.2d at 278 (“Despite the differences in
terminology between these two statutes, we have consistently indicated that the tests
for personal bias and prejudice are identical.”).
Under § 144, a challenged judge must determine in the first instance whether
the affidavit required in the statute is legally sufficient and, if so, must refer the
motion to another judge for determination. See United States v. Montecalvo, 545 F.2d
684, 685 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not made a legally
sufficient affidavit or a proper certification stating that the motion is made in good
faith. The motion therefore fails to extent it is brought under § 144.
The motion also fails if considered on its merits. In both §§ 144 and 455, the
standard is “whether a reasonable person with the knowledge of all the facts would
conclude the judge’s impartiality might be questioned.” Taylor v. Regents of the Univ.
of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). The standard requires a recusal if a reasonable third-party observer would
perceive a “significant risk” that the judge would resolve the case on a basis other
than the merits. Cuevas v. Kelly, Civil No. 6:18-cv-01973, 2019 WL 2518121, at *1
(D. Or. June 18, 2019). “The reasonable person in this context means a well-informed,
thoughtful observer, as opposed to a hypersensitive or unduly suspicious person.”
Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court of Nevada, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal
Page 3 –OPINION & ORDER
quotation marks and citations omitted). To warrant recusal under § 455, judicial bias
must stem from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during
the course of proceedings. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d at 566.
Here, the motion appear to stem from Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with the
Court’s consideration of their various filings, and the Court’s finding that the
Complaint “and the bulk of Plaintiff’s other filings are made up of pseudo-legal
gibberish and are largely incomprehensible.” Opinion & Order, at 3. ECF No. 18. As
noted, however, § 455 requires that the bias stem from an extrajudicial source and a
judge’s prior adverse ruling alone is an insufficient basis for recusal.
Mayes v.
Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have
not made a sufficient showing to justify recusal under either § 144 or § 455. The
motion to recuse is therefore DENIED.
II.
Motion for Reconsideration
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs reconsideration of a “final
judgment, order, or proceeding” of the district court. That Rule allows a district court
to relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:
“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence . . . ;(3) fraud . . . or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is
void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The party making the Rule 60(b) motion bears the
burden of proof. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (188).
Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
Page 4 –OPINION & ORDER
interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est.
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “Motions for reconsideration are not the proper vehicle for rehashing old
arguments and are not intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to
sway the judge.” Phillips v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 615, 670 (D. Nev. 2013)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted, alterations normalized).
Here, Plaintiff objects to the Court’s consideration of their “Affidavits of
Truth.” Plaintiffs object that the Court did not provide them with the Court’s oath of
office upon demand. Plaintiffs assert that the judgment “must be nullified due to a
lack of LEGITIMATE POLITICAL POWER backed by a BOND.” Pl. Mot. at 1
(emphasis in original). None of these arguments provide a basis for reconsideration
of the Court’s prior rulings. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the filing captioned “Void Judgements Per
Maxim 19: 15 U.S.C. Prim-A-Facie As Per Violated Maxim 23: Failure to Provide
Oath of Office When Requested (Doc 20) Plaintiff’s Request New, Lawful Judge:
Failure to Act Upon Unrebutted Affidavits Of Truth (Doc 19) For Opinion (Doc 23 &
24),” ECF No. 25, which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration and a
motion for recusal, is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this
25th
day of October 2024.
/s/Ann Aiken
ANN AIKEN
United States District Judge
Page 5 –OPINION & ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?