Heggem v. Holmes et al

Filing 108

ORDER REFERRING MOTION TO CHIEF JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN: 103 MOTION for Recusal filed by Larry Gene Heggem by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. (RS)cc Heggem

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 LARRY GENE HEGGEM, NO. C10-1997-RSM-MAT 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 12 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR RECUSAL; REFERRING MOTION TO CHIEF JUDGE ANDREA HOLMES, et al., Defendants. 14 15 In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights action, plaintiff Larry Gene Heggem moves for a 16 second time to have the undersigned judge voluntarily recuse because of recommendations 17 made adverse to his interests here and in other cases. (Dkt. 103); see (Dkts. 56, 57 (orders 18 denying first motion for recusal)); 28 U.S.C. § 144 (recusal statute); see, e.g., Heggem v. Hupp, 19 C11-337-MJP (W.D. Wash. closed Mar. 28, 2011); Heggem v. Snohomish County Prosecutors, 20 No. C11-538-RSM (W.D. Wash. closed May 18, 2011). 21 undersigned judge is protecting the defendants because they are female. (Dkt. 103, at 1.) Plaintiff also suggests that the 22 Pursuant to Local Rule GR 8(c), the Court has reviewed the motion to recuse and finds 23 no justification for voluntary recusal. Pursuant to Local Rule GR 8(c), the motion to recuse is 24 now referred to the Chief Judge. Further action by the undersigned judge in this case will be 25 deferred pending a ruling by the Chief Judge as to whether plaintiff has presented a timely and 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR RECUSAL; REFERRING MOTION TO CHIEF JUDGE - 1 1 sufficient basis for recusal. The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel 2 for defendants, and to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman. 3 DATED this 16th day of July, 2012. A 4 5 Mary Alice Theiler United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR RECUSAL; REFERRING MOTION TO CHIEF JUDGE - 2

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?