Allah v. Sherfey

Filing 10

ORDER, by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. Allah's Motion for Recusal, Dkt 7 , is DENIED, and Judge Martinez's Order Declining to Recuse, Dkt 8 , is AFFIRMED.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Allah, Prisoner ID: 950376)(DK)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CASE NO. C17-1746RSM-JPD

ALLAH,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11

ORDER

v.
PAUL SHERFEY,

12

Defendant.

13
14

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

15

[Dkt. #8], declining to recuse himself in response to Plaintiff Allah’s1 Motion to Recuse [Dkt.

16

#7]. That Order was referred to this Court as the most senior non-Chief Judge under 28 U.S.C.

17

§144 and LCR 3(e).

18

Allah claims that Judge Martinez is a “liar,” “the devil” and a “creep.” He claims Judge

19

Martinez is demonstrating bias and prejudice to Allah, possibly based on a decision in another

20

case, and possibly based on the fact that he has not yet succeed in this case:

21
22
23
24

1
Plaintiff refers to himself as “Allah@”. He is incarcerated, following a conviction under another name. The gist of
his complaint appears to be that he, Allah, is not the named person convicted, the Court and Judges involved in his
case are not legitimate, and the conviction should be vacated on that basis.

ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
[Dkt. #7 at 3].
10
A federal judge should recuse himself if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the
11
facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C.
12
§ 144; see also 28 U.S.C. § 455; Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.
13
1993). This objective inquiry is concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not
14
whether there is bias in fact. See Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1992); see
15
also United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980). ). In the absence of specific
16
allegations of personal bias, prejudice, or interest, neither prior adverse rulings of a judge nor his
17
participation in a related or prior proceeding is sufficient” to establish bias. Davis v. Fendler, 650
18
F.2d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 1981). Judicial rulings alone “almost never” constitute a valid basis for
19
a bias or partiality motion. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
20
Allah’s recusal motion does not identify or claim any personal bias, prejudice or interest
21
on the part of Judge Martinez. It does not articulate any fact that would lead a reasonable
22
observer to question Judge Martinez’s impartiality. It is based instead on his claim that the state
23
court judgment is invalid and that Judge Martinez will dismiss his case to save his fellow
24

ORDER - 2

1

“creeps.” Furthermore, if and to the extent the claim of bias is based on Allah’s lack of success in

2

this or a different case, that is not a valid basis for a motion to recuse; judicial rulings alone

3

“almost never” are.

4

Allah’s Motion for Recusal [Dkt. #7] is DENIED, and Judge Martinez’s Order Declining

5

to Recuse [Dkt. #8] is AFFIRMED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated this 9th day of January, 2018.

11

A

12

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 3