Collett v. Mason County et al

Filing 135

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 125 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by U.S. District Judge David G Estudillo.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Mathew Collett, Prisoner ID: 839677)(MW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MATHEW COLLETT, v. Plaintiff, MASON COUNTY et al., CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05654-TMCDWC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 125) Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 125) of the Court’s 17 order (Dkt. No. 121) affirming Judge Christel’s denial of recusal (Dkt. No. 118). The order now 18 under reconsideration held that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal had failed to “identify any 19 extrajudicial source of bias or prejudice” because it “exclusively t[ook] issue with the manner in 20 which Judge Christel has presided over this case.” (Dkt. No. 121 at 2.) 21 22 Motions for reconsideration are “disfavored” and “will ordinarily [be] den[ied].” LCR 7(h)(1). To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a movant must raise “manifest error in the 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 125) - 1 1 prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] 2 attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. 3 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration neither shows manifest error in the Court’s decision 4 nor new facts or legal authority that would satisfy the legal standard for recusal. Instead, 5 Plaintiff again takes issue with the manner in which Judge Christel has presided over the case, 6 arguing Judge Christel’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel reflects bias. (Dkt. No. 7 125 at 1–2.) But adverse rulings of a judge—including a denial of a motion to appoint counsel— 8 do not qualify as bias or prejudice sufficient to warrant recusal. United States v. Studley, 783 9 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (“alleged prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source; a 10 judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal”); United States v. Nelson, 718 11 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Adverse rulings do not constitute the requisite bias.”); Douglas v. 12 Department of Homeland Security, 2011 WL 2261972, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2011) (a 13 judge’s “decision to deny . . . [a] motion to appoint counsel . . . does not imply that a judge is 14 biased”). 15 The Court accordingly DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 125). 16 Dated this 26th day of March 2024. 17 18 19 A David G. Estudillo United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 125) - 2

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?