Bonner v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 40

ORDER. The Court finds and ORDERS that Judge Christel's order declining Plaintiffs request that he disqualify himself (Dkt. # 39 ) is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)

Case 2:20-cv-01572-DWC Document 40 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 4

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

6
7
8

TYLER BONNER,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

CASE NO. C20-1572 DWC
ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER DECLINING
TO VOLUNTARILY RECUSE

v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE U.S. SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

13
14
15

This matter is before the Court, under the local rules, for review of United States

16

Magistrate David W. Christel’s order denying Plaintiff’s request that he voluntarily recuse

17

himself from this case. Dkt. #39; LOCAL RULES W.D. WASH. LCR 3(f) (order denying voluntary

18

judicial recusal referred to the Chief Judge for review). Having reviewed the matter, the Court

19

affirms Judge Christel’s order.

20

A. Background

21

Plaintiff initiated this action to obtain judicial review of the United States Social Security

22

Administration’s (“SSA”) final decision denying his application for disability insurance and

23

supplemental security income benefits. Dkt. #5. Plaintiff maintained that the administrative law

24

judge’s decision, subsequently affirmed by SSA’s Appeals Council, was based on errors of law
ORDER – 1

Case 2:20-cv-01572-DWC Document 40 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 4

1

and was unsupported by substantial evidence. Id. Judge Christel disagreed, and affirmed the

2

administrative law judge’s decision. Dkt. #34. Plaintiff quickly filed a motion to alter or amend

3

the judgment and, in the same motion, sought to have Judge Christel recuse himself from any

4

further proceedings. Dkt. #36. Judge Christel denied Plaintiff’s request for voluntarily recusal,

5

without addressing the merits of the underlying motion to alter or amend judgment, and referred

6

the matter to the Undersigned. Dkt. #39.

7

Primarily, Plaintiff takes issue with the tone of Judge Christel’s order:

8

11

Given the tone of the Order, Plaintiff requests that Magistrate Christel recuse
himself from any further adjudication in this case. Plaintiff understands that
Magistrate Christel has a nationwide, well deserved reputation for excellence in
legal reasoning, ethics, and judicial demeanor. Plaintiff’s counsel is honored to
be an officer of Christel’s court. But in this particular case, perhaps due to the
tense inundation of new Seila arguments filed late in the game across the nation,
Magistrate Christel has reacted without his usual professionalism.

12

Id. at 8. Additionally, and intertwined with his substantive legal arguments, Plaintiff takes issue

13

with Judge Christel’s judicial decision not to sua sponte impose sanctions on defense counsel.

14

Dkt. #38 at 3–4. Specifically, Plaintiff points to defense counsel’s characterization, quotation,

15

and citation of a specific case, actions which Judge Christel found “invited ambiguity.” Id. at 3.1

9
10

16

B. Legal Standard

17

A “judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his

18

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 144.

19

This includes circumstances where the judge has “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,

20

or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 455(b)(1). Recusal is appropriate if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would

22

conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic

23
24

1

Plaintiff does not point to any portion of the record where he brought the propriety of sanctions
before the Court.

ORDER – 2

Case 2:20-cv-01572-DWC Document 40 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 4

1

Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). This is an objective inquiry concerned with

2

whether there is the appearance of bias, not whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. United States,

3

923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980).

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

C. Discussion
At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s concerns all stem from Judge Christel’s order
affirming the administrative action at issue in this case.
[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
motion. . . . [O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or
events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings,
do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep
seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus,
judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or
even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias
or partiality challenge.

11
12

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Relying solely on Judge Christel’s order

13

resolving the case, Plaintiff sets himself on a difficult course.

14

Additionally, Plaintiff takes issue with the language of Judge Christel’s order, although

15

he does not point to any specific passages. Dkt. #36 at 7 (“[T]he tone of the Order [of] this Court

16

is in places not professional and includes moralizing and exasperation, as if Plaintiff has done

17

something wrong.”). Notably, and while Judge Christel’s legal findings and conclusions may

18

have been set forth more bluntly than Plaintiff would prefer, Plaintiff does not contend that Judge

19

Christel mischaracterizes the record or prior proceedings. Plaintiff’s objection, then, is based

20

solely on his subjective opinion of the merits of his case. But, to the extent Plaintiff disagrees

21

with Judge Christel’s conclusions and legal analysis, the legal propriety of the order is an issue

22

for further litigation or, if Plaintiff chooses, possibly for appeal.

23
24
ORDER – 3

Case 2:20-cv-01572-DWC Document 40 Filed 01/07/22 Page 4 of 4

1

D. Conclusion

2

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds and ORDERS that Judge

3

Christel’s order declining Plaintiffs request that he disqualify himself (Dkt. #39) is AFFIRMED.

4

DATED this 7th day of January, 2022.

5
6

A

7

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER – 4