McKoby v. Post et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Recusal. Chief Judge Martinez's Order of Dismissal in which he declines to recuse himself 11 is AFFIRMED; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 1/24/2018 (DN). (cc to pltf)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

WILLIAM MCKOBY,

CASE NO. C17-1517 RSM

9
Plaintiff,
10
11

ORDER

v.
GLEN POST – CENTURYLINK, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez’s Order

15

of Dismissal [Dkt. #11] in which Judge Martinez declined to recuse himself in response to pro se

16

Plaintiff William McKoby’s “Affidavit of Prejudice/Motion to Recuse” [Dkt. #10]. The Order

17

was referred to this Court as the most senior non-Chief Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and LCR

18

3(e).

19

A federal judge should recuse himself if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the

20

facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 144; see also 28 U.S.C. § 455; Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.

22

1993). This objective inquiry is concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not

23

whether there is bias in fact. See Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1992); see

24

ORDER - 1

1

also United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980). ). In the absence of specific

2

allegations of personal bias, prejudice, or interest, neither prior adverse rulings of a judge nor his

3

participation in a related or prior proceeding is sufficient” to establish bias. Davis v. Fendler,

4

650 F.2d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 1981). Judicial rulings alone “almost never” constitute a valid

5

basis for a bias or partiality motion. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

6

After obtaining IFP status, McKoby filed a disjointed Complaint that was deficient in

7

many ways. Chief Judge Martinez issued a Show Cause Order [Dkt. #5] directing McKoby to

8

correct several deficiencies identified by the Court. McKoby filed two responses that failed to

9

address the deficiencies in his Complaint. McKoby was provided an additional opportunity to

10

respond to the Show Cause Order but instead filed an Affidavit of Prejudice/Motion to Recuse

11

Chief Judge Martinez. After a careful review of the filings in this case, the Court determines that

12

McKoby does not articulate any factual basis to reasonably question Chief Judge Martinez’s

13

impartiality. Accordingly, the Motion to Recuse [Dkt. #10] is DENIED and Chief Judge

14

Martinez’s Order of Dismissal in which he declines to recuse himself [Dkt. #11] is AFFIRMED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 24th day of January, 2018.

18

A

19

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

17

20

21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2