McKoby v. Post et al

Filing 8

ORDER RE: RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO RECUSE denying Plaintiff's 6 7 Affidavit of Prejudice, interpreted as a Motion for Recusal. This Order is referred to Honorable Ronald B. Leighton for review of this decision. Plaintiff permitted to file one additional Response to the Court's Order by 11/8/2017. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: Judge Leighton, plaintiff via first class mail

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

7
8
9
10

WILLIAM MCKOBY,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

Case No. C17-1517 RSM
ORDER RE: RESPONSE TO ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO
RECUSE

GLEN POST – CENTURYLINK, et al.,

14
Defendants.

15
16

Pro se Plaintiff William McKoby has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

17

in this matter. Dkt. #3. The Complaint was posted on the docket on October 17, 2017. Dkt.

18

#4. Summonses have not yet been issued. On October 18, 2017, the Court issued an Order to

19
20
21

Show Cause directing Plaintiff to write a short and plain statement telling the Court (1) the
separate causes of action upon which his claims are based, (2) how Defendants violated each of

22

those laws causing harm to Plaintiff, (3) why this Court has jurisdiction over these claims, (4)

23

why these claims are not duplicative of the underlying state court action, and (5) why this case

24
25
26

should not be dismissed as frivolous. Dkt. #5 at 3–4. Plaintiff has until November 8, 2017, to
respond.

27

On October 23 and 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed two apparently identical Responses. Dkts.

28

#6 and #7 (“Show Cause Response”). The Court believes that one was hand delivered and one

ORDER RE: RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO RECUSE - 1

1

was mailed to the Court. These Responses do not provide the above requested details. Instead,

2

Plaintiff states only that Defendant is guilty of violating certain federal statutes and moves to

3

seek depositions to perpetuate testimony. Plaintiff also filed an “Affidavit of Prejudice” stating

4

the following: “[t]he above Plaintiff ‘believes’ I may not gain a fair hearing or trial under Judge

5
6
7

RS MARTINEZ and therefore file affidavit of prejudice.” Dkt. #6 at 2; Dkt. #7 at 2. Plaintiff
provides no other facts or argument on this issue.

8

The Court will interpret Plaintiff’s filings as moving for recusal. Under this Court’s

9

Local Rules, this motion is first reviewed by the challenged Judge and then referred to another

10
11
12

judge for review. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Federal

13

judges also shall disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have a personal bias or

14

prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning

15

the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1).

16

The Court finds that Plaintiff provides no factual basis whatsoever for recusal. The

17
18

Court will thus deny Plaintiff’s request.

19

Accordingly the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

20

1.

21
22
23

DENIED.
2.

26
27

In accordance with LCR 3(e), this Order is referred to the Honorable Ronald B.
Leighton, the senior active judge in this District, for review of this decision.

24
25

Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Prejudice, interpreted as a Motion for Recusal, is

3.

Plaintiff’s Response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause is inadequate.
Plaintiff is permitted to file one additional Response to the Court’s Order by
November 8, 2017.

28

ORDER RE: RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO RECUSE - 2

1
2
3
4

4.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to U.S. District Judge
Ronald B. Leighton and Plaintiff.

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at PO BOX 16056, SEATTLE,
WA 98116-0056.

5
6
7
8
9
10

DATED this 27th day of October 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER RE: RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION TO RECUSE - 3