Hill v. Martin et al

Filing 29

ORDER affirming Judge Leighton's denial of Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5
6
7
8

ROBERT HILL,
Case No. C17-5586RBL
Plaintiff,
ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGE
LEIGHTON’S DENIAL OF MOTION
TO RECUSE

v.
KATE MARTIN,

9

Defendant.

10
11

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal, in which he

12

seeks the recusal of U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton from this case. Dkt. #18. On April

13

26, 2018, Judge Leighton declined to recuse himself. Dkt. #27. In accordance with the Local

14

Rules of this District, the matter was then referred to the Undersigned for review. LCR 3(e).

15

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any

16

proceeding in which his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Federal judges also shall

17

disqualify themselves in circumstances where they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

18

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

19

§ 455(b)(1).

20

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

21

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

22

might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th

23

Cir.1993). This is an objective inquiry concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not
whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir.1992); United
ORDER - 1

1

States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir.1980). In Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540

2

(1994), the United States Supreme Court further explained the narrow basis for recusal:

3

[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.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Id. at 555.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts or behavior by the Court
demonstrating bias towards him. Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to call Judge Leighton’s
Judicial Assistant to request extensions of time in his case, but that the Judicial Assistant blocked
his calls because he was calling from the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. Dkt. #18
at ¶ ¶ 3-5. He then questions whether the Court is biased against him because he is incarcerated.
Dkt. #18 at ¶ 7. Plaintiff fails to allege any facts pertaining to Judge Leighton from which a
reasonable person could find bias. Therefore, the Court finds no evidence upon which to
reasonably question Judge Leighton’s impartiality and AFFIRMS his denial of Plaintiff’s request
that he recuse himself.
The Clerk SHALL provide copies of this Order to Plaintiff, all counsel of record, and to
Judge Leighton.
DATED this 30 day of April, 2018.

20

A

21

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23

ORDER - 2