Caruso et al v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying Stephen Eugster's 64 MOTION to Disqualify; referring this Order to Honorable Ronald B. Leighton for review of this decision, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5
6
7

ROBERT E. CARUSO and SANDRA L.
FERGUSON,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

Case No. C17-0003 RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY

v.

10
11
12
13

WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Stephen K. Eugster’s “Motion to Disqualify

14
15

Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez.” Dkt. #64. Mr. Eugster, counsel for Plaintiff Robert Caruso,

16

appears to have filed this Motion on his own behalf rather than on behalf of his client. He has

17

also failed to properly note this Motion. Regardless, the Court has determined that it can rule

18

without responsive briefing.

19
20
21

Mr. Eugster states that “Judge Martinez and the court were the victims of fraud,” and
that Judge Martinez went a step further and became a knowing participant in the fraud.” Id. at

22

1. Mr. Eugster does not provide any further factual support for his Motion, nor does he attach

23

any declarations or other evidence. The Motion cites to, inter alia, “Roman law” and argues

24
25
26

that the undersigned has made this case “his own” and that this leads to questions about the
undersigned’s impartiality. Id. at 2–4.

27

Under this Court’s Local Rules, this motion is first reviewed by the challenged Judge

28

and then referred to another judge for review. LCR 3(e). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY - 1

1

judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality

2

“might reasonably be questioned.”

3

circumstances where they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal

4

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1).

5
6
7

Federal judges also shall disqualify themselves in

“[A] judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” United States v. Studley,
783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710,

8

712 (9th Cir. 1993) (“To warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial

9

source.”).

10
11
12

The Court finds that Mr. Eugster has failed to set forth any evidence for his Motion and
his legal arguments are conclusory. To the best of the Court’s understanding, Mr. Eugster is

13

relying solely on this Court’s prior adverse ruling as evidence of bias. This is insufficient to

14

warrant recusal. See Studley, supra; Taylor, supra. There is no reasonable basis to question

15

impartiality. Accordingly, the undersigned judge declines to voluntarily recuse himself.

16

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby

17
18

finds and ORDERS:

19

1.

Mr. Eugster’s Motion to Disqualify (Dkt. #64) is DENIED.

20

2.

In accordance with LCR 3(e), this Order is referred to the Honorable Ronald B.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Leighton, the senior active judge in this District, for review of this decision.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Judge Leighton.
DATED this 17th day of May 2018.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY - 2