McCracken v. Shapiro & Sutherland LLC et al

Filing 20

ORDER re 19 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and recusal of judge; Judge Leighton denies the recusal; this matter is referred to Chief Judge Martinez for further review; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) Modified on 12/15/2017 (DN). (ad hoc to Judge Martinez)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

ELLEN M MCCRACKEN,

CASE NO. C17-1596RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
11

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECUSE

SHAPIRO & SUTHERLAND LLC, et
al.,

12
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Ellen McCracken’s Motion to
Recuse, contained within her proposed amended complaint filed in support of her motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt. #19].
McCracken filed the proposed amended complaint in response to the Court’s prior Order
denying her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which attempted to explain in plain
English the deficiencies in her first attempt. The new filing names Ronald B. Leighton as a
defendant in the case, and buried in the proposed complaint is a demand that he recuse himself
from hearing this case:

22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE - 2

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

[Dkt. #16-17]
A federal judge should recuse himself if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE - 3

1

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

2

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

3

McCracken has loudly alleged personal bias, but has articulated no facts that would lead

4

a reasonable person to believe it exists. She is instead displeased that her first complaint was not

5

deemed sufficient to entitle her to in forma pauperis status. But that is a decision made in this

6

case, and that is not a basis for recusal.

7
8
9
10

The Court will not recuse itself voluntarily based on McCracken’s filing. The Motion to
Recuse is DENIED. Under LCR 3(e), this Matter is referred to Chief Judge Martinez for review.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 15th day of December, 2017.

12

A

13

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

11

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE - 4