Scott v. Cunningham

Filing 49

ORDER denying 38 Motion for Recusal; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,
No. C11-5509 BHS/KLS

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
“MOTION FOR SELF RECUSAL”

v.
KELLY CUNNINGHAM,
Defendant.

13
On September 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Self Recusal” and requested that the
14
15

Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, recuse herself from these

16

proceedings. Dkt. No. 38. Plaintiff requests that the undersigned recuse herself “for failure to

17

rule on any motion or demand response to unopposed motions or to rule on discovery.” Id.

18

Pursuant to Local General Rule 8(c), Judge Strombom reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, declined to

19

recuse herself voluntarily, and referred the matter to the undersigned. Dkt. No. 45. Plaintiff’s

20

motion is therefore ripe for review by this Court.

21
22
23
24
25
26

Having reviewed the record in the above-entitled matter, the Court finds no grounds
requiring Judge Strombom to recuse herself and DENIES the motion.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States shall disqualify herself in any
proceeding in which her impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” A federal judge also
ORDER REGARDING RECUSAL MOTION - 1

1

shall disqualify herself in circumstances where she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

2

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

3

§ 455(b)(1).

4

Under both 28 U.S.C. §144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal of a federal judge is appropriate

5
if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s
6
7

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626

8

(9th Cir.1993). This is an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance of

9

bias, not whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th

10

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

11

States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994), the United States Supreme Court further explained the narrow basis

12

for recusal:

13
14
15
16
17

[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.

18
19
20

Id. at 555.
Plaintiff’s motion for Judge Strombom to recuse herself was based, not on any ruling she

21

had made, but on her failure to rule on certain motions in a manner which Plaintiff deemed

22

timely. These allegations do not implicate any personal bias or prejudice on Judge Strombom’s

23

part towards any part, nor any personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary issues. This Court

24

cannot reasonably question Judge Strombom’s impartiality.

25
26
ORDER REGARDING RECUSAL MOTION - 2

CONCLUSION

1
2

There is no reasonable basis for a voluntary recusal in this instance.

3

Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED that the undersigned DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

4

for Judge Strombom to recuse herself voluntarily.

5
6
7
8

The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to any parties who
have appeared in this action.

9
DATED this 14th day of October, 2011.
10
11

A

12
13

Marsha J. Pechman
Chief United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER REGARDING RECUSAL MOTION - 3