Caruso et al v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 64 Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify; Judge Martinez's Order 65 is AFFIRMED; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

ROBERT E CARUSO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

v.

CASE NO. C17-3 RSM
ORDER

WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION 1933, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez’s Order
[Dkt. # 65], declining to Recuse himself in response to Plaintiff Caruso’s attorney, Stephen
Eugster’s Motion to Disqualify [Dkt. # 64]. The Order was referred to this Court as the most
senior non-Chief Judge under 28 U.S.C. §144 and LCR 3(e).
Eugster’s Motion includes almost no factual background, and it is not supported with any
evidence. Instead, it includes a single conclusory statement:

20
21
22
23

[Dkt. # 64 at 1] In other filings, Eugster states that Judge Martinez does not have jurisdiction and
his judgments are void, whether the courts agree, or not:

24

ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

[Dkt. # 63 at 4]. It appears that Eugster is claiming disqualification (or seeking recusal) based on
what he claims are erroneous decisions in this case.
A federal judge should recuse himself if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the
facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 144; see also 28 U.S.C. § 455; Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.
1993). This objective inquiry is concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not
whether there is bias in fact. See Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1992); see
also United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980). ). In the absence of specific
allegations of personal bias, prejudice, or interest, neither prior adverse rulings of a judge nor his
participation in a related or prior proceeding is sufficient to establish bias. Davis v. Fendler, 650
F.2d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 1981). Judicial rulings alone “almost never” constitute a valid basis for
a bias or partiality motion. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
Eugster’s recusal motion does not identify or claim any personal bias, prejudice or
interest on the part of Judge Martinez; it includes no factual allegations at all. Eugster has not
raised any issue that would lead a reasonable person to question whether Judge Martinez can be

22
23
24

ORDER - 2

1

impartial in this case. His Motion to Disqualify [Dkt. # 64] is DENIED, and Judge Martinez’s

2

Order [Dkt. # 65] is AFFIRMED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 22nd day of May, 2018.

5
6

A

7

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

8

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

ORDER - 3