Siva Rama Rao Kotapati v. Kim et al
ORDER by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez on Defendant Hae Young Kim's 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant's motion for recusal was properly denied, and his motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 23 ) is likewise DENIED. (swt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SIVA RAMA RAO KOTAPATI,
CASE NO. C17-118 JCC
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
HAE YOUNG KIM, et al.,
On February 9, 2017, Defendant filed an “Affidavit of Prejudice Pursuant to Title 28 §
144 Bias or Prejudice of Judge.” Dkt. #16. In it, Defendant alleged that he “has reason to
believe that Judge Coughenour is biased and prejudiced against pro se’ litigants, insofar I cannot
receive a fair trial I am reasonable (sic) informed he can favor Creditors as well.” Id. at 2. It
appeared that he had come to this conclusion after a review of Judge Coughenour’s biography.
Judge Coughenour declined to recuse himself (Dkt. #19) and this Court, concurring with
Judge Coughenour’s observation that “[c]onclusory statements about how Defendant perceives
Judge Coughenour are not sufficient” (id. at 1), affirmed the refusal to recuse. Dkt. #22.
Defendant has now filed a request that the Court reconsider that order.
Under Local Rule 7(h),
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny
such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have
been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Defendant alleges a “manifest error” in the ruling upholding the presiding judge’s refusal to
recuse himself. He quotes 28 U.S.C. § 144 to the effect that “[t]he affidavit shall state the facts
and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists” in support of his contention that his
belief that Judge Coughenour is biased or prejudiced is sufficient to merit recusal.
Defendant is mistaken. The section he quotes clearly states that his belief must be based
on “facts and reasons,” which he failed to provide in support of his request. He is further
mistaken in his assertion that motions to recuse in federal court are “similar to state law
affidavits of prejudice RCW 4.12.050 which gives a party a one-time chance before trial to
replace a Judge.” Dkt. #23 at 2. Federal court recusal procedures differ from those of the
Washington state courts in that a federal litigant must come forward with “facts and reasons” to
support a recusal motion or it will be denied.
The Court’s prior ruling contains no manifest error. Defendant’s motion for recusal was
properly denied, and his motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #23) is likewise DENIED.
The Clerk shall provide copies of this Order to Plaintiff and all counsel of record.
Dated this 10th day of March 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 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?