Hill v. Martin et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING re 18 Plaintiff's MOTION for Recusal; this matter is REFERRED to Chief Judge Martinez for further resolution of the recusal; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) Modified on 4/26/2018 (DN). (cc to pltf) (cc to Judge Martinez)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

CASE NO. C17-5586 RBL

ROBERT HILL,
Plaintiff,

10

v.

11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECUSE

KATE MARTIN,

12

Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Hill’s Motion to Recuse [Dkt. #18]. Hill

15

claims that he tried to call the Court staff from prison to talk about his inability to meet various

16

deadlines, but they would not accept his calls:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE - 1

A federal judge should recuse himself if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the

1
2

facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C.

3

§144; 28 U.S.C. § 455; Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.1993). This is

4

an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not whether there is

5

bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir.1992); United States v.

6

Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir.1980). In the absence of specific allegations of personal

7

bias, prejudice, or interest, neither prior adverse rulings of a judge nor his participation in a

8

related or prior proceeding is sufficient” to establish bias. Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1163

9

(9th Cir. 1981); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“judicial rulings

10

alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).
Under the Local Rules of this District, a motion for recusal is addressed first to the

11
12

presiding judge, and if the judge does not recuse voluntarily, the matter is referred to the chief

13

judge for review. See LCR 3(e). This Court therefore considers Hill’s Motion in the first

14

instance.
Hill has not even tried to claim that the judge is biased against him; he makes a half-

15
16

hearted (but entirely false) claim that the Judge ordered staff to block Hill’s calls. There is no

17

showing that would lead any reasonable question whether the Court was prejudiced against Hill.

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE - 2

1

This Court will not recuse itself voluntarily, and REFERS this matter to Chief Judge Martinez

2

under LCR 3(e). Any pending motions will be addressed following the resolution of this motion.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 27th day of April, 2018.

5
6

A

7

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

8

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE - 3