Khazali v. Robart

Filing 7

ORDER denying plaintiff's 6 Motion for Recusal; plaintiff to show cause within 21 days signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

MASOUD KHAZALI,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

Case No. C17-1101RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECUSAL AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

JAMES L. ROBART,

14
15

Defendant.

16

Pro Se Plaintiff Masoud Khazali has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in

17

this matter. Dkt. #4. The Complaint was posted on the docket on July 24, 2017. Dkt. #5.

18

Summons have not yet been issued.

19
20
21

As an initial matter, Plaintiff brings a Motion for “Recusal and Direct Review by Jury.”
Dkt. #6. Plaintiff “request[s] this case to be reviewed directly by a 12 member jury because

22

Federal judges cannot defend their own colleagues at their own court against immigrants whom

23

their States have been abusing for more than 200 years!” Id. Plaintiff makes tangential

24
25
26

references to slavery and the bible. Plaintiff ends with a conciliatory parenthetical: “(Judges
could read the document and issue corrective orders to correct the previous orders).” Id. The

27

Court finds that Plaintiff has presented insufficient evidence to support a request for recusal.

28

Plaintiff does not request that any one judge be recused, but that all judges generally recuse

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

1

themselves; this is not relief that can be granted. The Court notes that Plaintiff is apparently

2

satisfied with this Court’s authority to hear this case as long as it rules in Plaintiff’s favor; this

3

further persuades the Court that denial is appropriate. Plaintiff’s allegations, similar to those in

4

his Complaint described below, appear frivolous. Accordingly, this Motion will be denied.

5
6
7

Plaintiff brings this action against the Honorable James. L. Robart, United States
District Judge. Id. at 1. Plaintiff states that Judge Robart “acted unconstitutional [sic] by

8

helping Kidnapping [sic] the child of the immigrant (and the U.S. citizen) Mr. Khazali,” and

9

that Judge Robart “supports and promotes such a crime act by promoting Christianity that

10
11
12

confirms the act of the Kidnapping and slavery of immigrant children (in its book of Bible) and
by working for the States that names its Capital, State, university, currency and stamp after the

13

slave master (Washington) who supported the Kidnapping of immigrant children and the

14

Slavery.” Id. Plaintiff goes on to attack our nation’s first president, George Washington, for

15

crimes such as murdering French while serving as an English military officer and using “arms

16

and explosives to fight the then current Government [during the American Revolution]; an act

17
18

of terrorism.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Robart “supports Kidnapping, child abuse,

19

slavery, gender and racial inequality, and terrorism as long as his work place symbolizes

20

Washington and names its capital after such a criminal and prints its currency in the name of

21

such criminal terrorist…” Id. Plaintiff’s views on George Washington and Christianity surface

22
23
24

repeatedly and unexpectedly in the Complaint. Plaintiff appears to bring this lawsuit based on
Judge Robart’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a stay in a prior or concurrent action. See id. at

25

3. Plaintiff argues that “judges should not be allowed to preside over the conflicts between a

26

citizen and a State (Or the States)” and that “no court should oversee a conflict between a court

27

and a citizen.” Id. at 3-4.

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2

1

Plaintiff includes the following attachments to his Complaint: “The Kidnap Loving

2

State,” which provides a sort of history of slavery in the United States; “The State of the

3

Claim,” which provides some procedural background, “The Tort of the Court,” which appears

4

at first glance to allege violations of the Constitution committed by various courts, but actually

5
6
7

attempts to connect modern court procedures like asking witnesses to raise their right hand or
hearing testimony from witnesses to ancient religious practices; “Life: the Live Connection

8

through Space,” which engages in a metaphysical discussion of “invisible energy” and “hidden

9

life in light;” “The Immune Executioner,” which discusses injury to the Plaintiff, including

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff “los[ing] his mind,” caused by the separation of Plaintiff from his child; “Prevention
of Abuse,” broadly discussing his claim; and “Valuing Property over Humanity,” which
accuses the Court of continuing historic practices of slavery. See id. at 5-18.

14

The Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises

15

frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

16

such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

17
18

The Complaint does not clearly identify what laws or statues Plaintiff believes give rise

19

to a claim against Judge Robart, and Plaintiff does not support his claims with specific facts

20

presented in a clear and understandable manner. Plaintiff’s allegations are extremely difficult

21

to follow with unconnected facts and broad sweeping accusations of crime connected to

22
23
24
25

unrelated historical events or possibly official court actions. It is unclear from the Complaint
how the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, why Judge Robart would not be immune from
suit, or even what relief Plaintiff is seeking.

26
27
28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3

1

Considering all of the above, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim and appears

2

frivolous and malicious. Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not adequately

3

explained in response to this Order, will require dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

4
5
6
7

In Response to this Order, Plaintiff must write a short and plain statement telling the
Court (1) the laws, statutes, or specific portions of the Constitution upon which his claims are
based, (2) how Defendant violated those laws or statutes causing harm to Plaintiff, and (3) why

8

this case should not be dismissed as frivolous. This Response may not exceed six (6) pages.

9

Plaintiff is not permitted to file additional pages as attachments. The Court will take no further

10
11
12

action in this case until Plaintiff has submitted this Response.
The Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

13

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Dkt. #6) is DENIED.

14

(2) Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause containing the detail

15

above no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Failure to

16

file this Response will result in dismissal of this case. The Clerk shall send a copy

17
18

of this Order to Plaintiff at 14324 32ND AVE NE, APT D, SEATTLE, WA 98125.

19
20

DATED this 25 day of July, 2017.

21

A

22
23

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 4