Stafne v. Burnside et al

Filing 37

MINUTE ORDER re Plaintiff's 35 MOTION for Recusal. The Honorable John C. Coughenour, U.S. District Judge, DECLINES to voluntarily recuse and REFERS the motion to Chief Judge Martinez under LCR 3(f). Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 29 ) is STAYED pending resolution of the motion for recusal. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (SR)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

SCOTT ERIK STAFNE,

10
11
12

v.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C16-0753-JCC
MINUTE ORDER

FREDERICK BENJAMIN BURNSIDE, et al.,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16
17

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
Coughenour, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (Dkt. No. 35). A federal judge must

18

“disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,”

19

“[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of

20

disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(1). A judge must

21

disqualify under these provisions if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would

22

conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Blixseth v. Yellowstone

23

Mountain Club, LLC, 742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Persnell v. Arsenault, 543

24

F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008)). “Absent a factual showing of a reasonable basis for

25

questioning his or her impartiality, or allegations of facts establishing other disqualifying

26

circumstances, a judge should participate in cases assigned.” Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583
MINUTE ORDER
C16-0753-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

(Fed. Cir. 1985). “Conclusory statements” or a party’s “unsupported beliefs and assumptions” do

2

not require a judge to recuse. Id.

3

Here, Plaintiff’s asserted basis for recusal is that Senior District Judges cannot exercise

4

federal judicial power because the statutory framework governing senior status violates the life

5

tenure requirement of Article III of the Constitution. (See generally Dkt. No. 35.) Courts have

6

rejected Plaintiff’s theory repeatedly:

7

Mr. Scott Stafne, has—unsuccessfully—attacked the ability of senior judges to
adjudicate cases and attempted to disqualify senior jurists in two previous cases in
the Western District of Washington, both of which were affirmed . . . by the Ninth
Circuit. . . .

8
9

Like the courts that have previously considered this issue, the court finds
Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to “senior status” meritless. See Bank of N.Y.
Mellon v. Stafne, 824 F. App’x 536, 536 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[Mr. Stafne’s]
argument that the senior district judge who heard his case was a ‘retired judge’
merely ‘acting as an Article III judge in this case,’ is without merit.”). “Senior
judges ‘are, of course, life-tenured Article III judges.’” Id. (quoting Nguyen v.
United States, 539 U.S. 69, 72 (2003)); see also Booth v. United States, 291 U.S.
339, 350 (noting that retired federal judges, as contrasted to resigned judges,
continue to hold office of judge and may continue to perform services as judge).
That is, senior judges were constitutionally nominated by the President, confirmed
by the Senate, and “retain the office” even when electing senior status. See 28
U.S.C. § 371(b)(1). Tellingly, Plaintiffs offer no judicial authority to the contrary,
relying instead on a law review article to underpin its constitutional argument.
[S]ee also Stafne v. Zilly, 337 F. Supp. 3d 1079, 1098 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (noting
that “no case law” supported finding senior status unconstitutional).

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

See Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2021 WL 615299, slip op. at 4–5 (W.D. Wash. 2021) (record
citations omitted). Thus, both res judicata and stare decisis foreclose Plaintiff’s argument, and
there is no basis for recusal.
Accordingly, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, U.S. District Judge, DECLINES to
voluntarily recuse and REFERS the motion to Chief Judge Martinez under LCR 3(f).
It is further ORDERED that consideration of Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No.
29) is STAYED pending resolution of the motion for recusal.
//

MINUTE ORDER
C16-0753-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

DATED this 1st day of April 2022.

2
3

Ravi Subramanian
Clerk of Court
s/Sandra Rawski
Deputy Clerk

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MINUTE ORDER
C16-0753-JCC
PAGE - 3