Hayes et al v. Blakeman et al
ORDER on Review of Plaintiff's 55 Motion for Recusal. Plaintiff has failed to present a reasonable basis to question Judge Peterson's impartiality. Accordingly, the Court finds and ORDERS that Judge Peterson's Order declining to recuse herself, Dkt. # 60 , is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS) Modified on 1/10/2022 to reflect mail-out (SB).
Case 2:20-cv-01612-TL-MLP Document 64 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
MICHAEL ALLEN HAYES,
CASE NO. C20-1612-TL-MLP
ORDER ON REVIEW OF MOTION
UNITED STATES PROBATION AND
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Allen Hayes’s Motion for Change
of Venue, which has been interpreted by the Court as seeking recusal of the Honorable
Michelle Peterson, Magistrate Judge. Dkt #55. Judge Peterson has reviewed this Motion,
declined to recuse, and in accordance with this Court’s Local Civil Rules, referred this matter
to the undersigned for review. Dkt. #60; LCR 3(f).
Plaintiff Hayes filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against King County Sheriff’s
Detective Benjamin Blakeman, City of Marysville Police Officer Brandon Blake, and King
County. Mr. Hayes claims excessive force, denial of adequate medical care, and destruction of
property. See Dkt. # 12. Mr. Hayes now argues that the Court’s rulings in this case are “unjust
and unfair at the least” and that they show “the Court is Bias [sic] against me for both my
mental health conditions & my rights that are continuing to be violated.” Dkt. #55 at 1. He
refers to “any and all decisions of Judge Magistrate.” Id. at 2. He presents his arguments and
ORDER ON REVIEW OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL - 1
Case 2:20-cv-01612-TL-MLP Document 64 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 3
1 evidence as to the merits of the underlying Motions that received unfavorable rulings but offers
2 no evidence of bias stemming from an extrajudicial source.
A judge of the United States shall disqualify herself in any proceeding in which her
4 impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Federal judges also shall
5 disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning
6 a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. 28
7 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, “whenever a party to any proceeding in a
8 district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the
9 matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse
10 party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear
11 such proceeding.” “[A] judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” United
12 States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
13 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (“To warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem from an
14 extrajudicial source.”).
The Court has reviewed the above Motion and finds that Plaintiff has failed to
16 demonstrate bias. Plaintiff focuses solely on adverse rulings from Judge Peterson, which
17 cannot serve as a basis for recusal. See Studley, supra. Plaintiff presents no evidence of bias
18 from an extrajudicial source.
Plaintiff has failed to present a reasonable basis to question Judge Peterson’s
20 impartiality. Accordingly, the Court finds and ORDERS that Judge Peterson’s Order declining
21 to recuse herself, Dkt. #60, is AFFIRMED.
ORDER ON REVIEW OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL - 2
Case 2:20-cv-01612-TL-MLP Document 64 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 3
DATED this 10th day of January, 2022.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER ON REVIEW OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?