Lukashin v. City of Olympia et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Recusal; this matter will be REFERRED to Chief Judge Martinez; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
IGOR LUKASHIN,

CASE NO. C16-5207-RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECUSE AND FOR
REASSIGNMENT TO DISTRICT
OUTSIDE THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CITY OF OLYMPIA, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Lukashin’s Motion to Recuse and for

15 Reassignment to District Outside the Ninth Circuit. [Dkt. #19]. This is the third case arising out
16 of Defendant City of Olympia’s efforts to collect an outstanding utility bill from Lukashin.
17

AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc (ARMI) sued Lukashin in Thurston County

18 District Court to collect the debt, and he asserted an FDCPA counterclaim. ARMI won, Lukashin
19 lost, and he appealed. While the appeal was pending, he sued ARMI in this court (Lukashin v.
20 AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc., et al., Cause No. 12-cv-5880RBL). That case was
21 dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend on res judicata and Rooker-Feldman
22 grounds. [See Dkt. #21 in that case.]
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE AND
FOR REASSIGNMENT TO DISTRICT OUTSIDE
THE NINTH CIRCUIT - 1

1

Lukashin appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed—including this Court’s refusal to

2 permit Lukashin to amendment his complaint:
3
4
5
6
7

Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because amendment
would have been futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2010)
(en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court
should grant leave to amend unless “the pleading could not possibly be cured by
the allegation of other facts” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). .
[See Dkt. #28 at 3 in that case].
Lukashin has now sued the City of Olympia for “due process violations” arising out of

8 the same underlying utility bill collection dispute and litigation. He asks this Court to recuse
9 itself and to assign the case to a District outside the Ninth Circuit. He claims that the Court’s
10 “totally unexplained dismissal with prejudice of the ARMI Case violated the Lukashins’ Due
11 Process Clause right to, at the very least, a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for such
12 property deprivation of a “chose in action.” [Dkt. # 19 at 2] The import, apparently, is that he
13 thinks this Court was wrong and that it may be biased against him.
14

Lukashin also suggests that the Court should recuse because it may be prosecuted, or at

15 least required to testify, if Lukashin wins:
16
17

[A] Reasonable Well-Informed Observer (“RWIO”) could conclude that
ruling in Lukashin’s favor in the instant action would be against the Court’s
own penal interest and/or require the Court’s witness testimony regarding its
own prior rulings in related cases.

18
[Dkt.# 19 at 6]
19
A federal judge should recuse himself if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the
20
facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28
21
U.S.C.§144; 28 U.S.C. § 455; Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.1993).
22
This is an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not whether
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE AND
FOR REASSIGNMENT TO DISTRICT OUTSIDE
THE NINTH CIRCUIT - 2

1 there is bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir.1992); United States v.
2 Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir.1980).
3

Lukashin has not shown that a reasonable person could question this Court’s impartiality.

4 His prior claim was dismissed and that dismissal was affirmed. That is not evidence of bias; it is
5 confirmation that his prior claim was without merit. The claim that a Lukashin victory in this
6 case would be against this Court’s “penal interests” is frivolous. This Court will not recuse itself
7 voluntarily, and REFERS this matter to Chief Judge Martinez under LCR 3(e).
8

The other pending motions [Dkt. #s 22, 24, and 25) will be resolved in a separate Order

9 after Judge Martinez rules on the Motion to Recuse.
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated this 1st day of September, 2016.

13

A

14

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE AND
FOR REASSIGNMENT TO DISTRICT OUTSIDE
THE NINTH CIRCUIT - 3