Irby v. Gilbert et al

Filing 95

ORDER ON REVIEW OF REFUSAL TO RECUSE re plaintiff's 84 Motion for Recusal. by Chief Judge Ricardo S Martinez.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Terrance Irby, Prisoner ID: 631794)(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 TERRANCE JON IRBY, 7 Plaintiff, 8 STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Recusal. Dkt. #84. In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges that U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura is biased against him apparently because Judge Creatura issued an Order directing Plaintiff to use the mandatory e-filing system to file documents with the Court rather than filing them by mail. See Dkts. #79 and #84. Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff to argue that he was unaware of the mandatory e-filing procedure. See Dkt. #84 at 1, and that Judge Creatura has demonstrated bias by failing to accept documents that he attempted to file by mail.1 Judge Creatura has declined to recuse himself and the matter has been referred to this Court in accordance with our Local Rules. LCR 3(e). Dkt. #94. 20 21 ORDER ON REVIEW OF REFUSAL TO RECUSE v. 9 13 CASE NO. C16-5052-RBL-JRC This Court concurs with Judge Creatura that Plaintiff has failed to produce any objective evidence of his alleged bias or that he has any reason to be partial to any party in this matter. 22 23 1 Judge Creatura notes that Plaintiff has been warned about his failure to use the e-filing 24 procedure on at least six prior occasions. Dkt. #79 at 1. ORDER ON REVIEW OF REFUSAL TO RECUSE1 1 Dkt. #94 at 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States shall disqualify 2 himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Federal 3 judges also shall disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have a personal bias or 4 prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 5 proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). 6 Under both 28 U.S.C. §144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal of a federal judge is appropriate 7 if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 8 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 9 (9th Cir.1993). This is an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance of 10 bias, not whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th 11 Cir.1992); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir.1980). But there must be a 12 reasonable basis upon which to question a judge’s ability to be impartial. Plaintiff has provided 13 no evidence of bias or prejudice on the part of Judge Creatura, and therefore the judge is not 14 required to recuse himself. Likewise, this Court finds no evidence upon which to reasonably 15 question Judge Creatura’s impartiality and therefore AFFIRMS his denial of Plaintiff’s request 16 that he recuse himself. 17 The Clerk SHALL provide copies of this order to all counsel of record and to Plaintiff. 18 Dated this 30th day of March, 2017. 19 A 20 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON REVIEW OF REFUSAL TO RECUSE2

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?