Williams v PRK Funding Services Inc et al

Filing 127

ORDER denying 118 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; Judge Martinez's underlying Order 120 is AFFIRMED; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9
10
11

DAMON CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRK FUNDING SERVICES INC,

12

CASE NO. C18-0048 RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[DKT. # 118]

Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on referral from Chief Judge Martinez THIS

15

MATTER is before the court on review of Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez’s Order [Dkt. # 120],

16

declining to Recuse himself in response to Plaintiff Williams’ “Motion for Contempt

17

[Confidential Personnel Matter]” [Dkt. #118]. The Order was referred to this Court as the most

18

senior non-Chief Judge under 28 U.S.C. §144 and LCR 3(e).

19
20

Williams’ Motion suggests that he seeks to hold Judge Martinez in contempt for his prior
actions or rulings:

21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1

1
2
3
4
5

[Dkt. # 118 at 14]. Judge Martinez had previously denied [Dkt. # 70] Williams’ “Motion for Writ

6

of Error, [Dkt. # 63], and more recently Ordered Williams to Show Cause regarding his apparent

7

failure to serve the defendants despite the passage of far more than 90 days since filing [Dkt. #

8

108]. Chief Judge Martinez characterized Williams current Motion for one as Reconsideration,

9

and perhaps for Recusal, Denied it, and referred it to this Court as the most senior non-Chief

10
11

Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and LCR 3(e).
A federal judge should recuse himself if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

participation in a related or prior proceeding is sufficient” to establish bias. Davis v. Fendler, 650

19

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

20

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

21

Williams’ Motion does not approach this standard. His Motion and his reasoning is hard

22

to follow, but it is clear that he is complaining about and objecting to rulings Judge Martinez has

23

made in this case:

24

[DKT. # 118] - 2

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

[Dkt. # 118 at 4-5].
Such rulings “almost never” require recusal, or the more unusual act of a Court “holding
itself in contempt.” Williams has identified no acts or conduct or facts of any kind even

23
24

[DKT. # 118] - 3

1

suggesting bias or prejudice. His Motion is frivolous and it is DENIED. Judge Martinez’s

2

underlying Order [Dkt. #120] is AFFIRMED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 16th day of August, 2018.

5
6

A

7

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

8

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

[DKT. # 118] - 4