1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MATTHEW G. SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5731 RJB/KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO RECUSE

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

OFFICE

This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR3 and MJR4. Plaintiff seeks damages in a civil lawsuit pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to recuse the Attorney General’s Office. (Dkt. # 101). For

the reasons set forth below, the motion shall be denied. 

 

I. DISCUSSION

The right to disqualify counsel is within the discretion of the trial court as an exercise of its

inherent powers. See United States v. Wunsch, 84 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.1996). Disqualification is a

drastic measure and the Court must consider the danger of a motion to disqualify opposing counsel as a

litigation tactic. United States ex rel. Lord Elec. Co., Inc. v. Titan Pac. Constr. Corp., 637 F.Supp.

1556, 1562 (W.D.Wash.1986). Because of the potential for abuse, disqualification motions should be

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 116 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

subjected to “particularly strict judicial scrutiny.” Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int'l Corp. v. Style Cos., 760

F.2d 1045, 1050 (9th Cir.1985) (citing Rice v. Baron, 456 F.Supp. 1361, 1370 (S.D.N.Y.1978)); see

also Freeman v. Chicago Musical Instrument Co., 689 F.2d 715, 721-22 (7th Cir.1982). 

Plaintiff seeks to disqualify the Washington State Attorney General’s Office and in particular,

AAG Olson, based on his belief that AAG Olson has improperly influenced prison staff with regard to a

letter Plaintiff sent to Judge Bryan. (Dkt. # 92). The court received 184 pages of the letter, but was

missing the first two pages. (Id.). The letter was docketed, but it was not noted as the document was

not filed as a motion nor had it been served on Defendants. (Dkt. # 93). 

Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to support disqualification of the Attorney General’s

Office as counsel for Defendants. Defendants, as state employees, are entitled to representation by the

Attorney General’s Office. See RCW 4.92., et seq. Plaintiff’s only basis for the motion to disqualify

appears to be a belief that AAG Olson’s letter to him include an inappropriate insinuation that the Court

did not receive all the pages included in his letter. (Dkt. # 101, Attach 1, ¶ 4, Exh. 2). A review of that

letter does not reveal any inappropriate insinuation. Instead, the letter appears to be a response to

Plaintiff’s request that a copy of his letter be sent to him. Plaintiff also seems to believe that AAG Olson

instructed DOC staff not to copy the letter for Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to support this

claim. (Id., ¶ 9). AAG Olson states in her declaration that she has never advised any DOC staff,

including the staff located at Florence Corrections Center, to violate DOC policy. (Dkt. # 110, Exh. 1).

Finally, Plaintiff states that a separate action he filed, Case No. C04-1484JCC, has been

dismissed, with the Court finding that “obstruction of his legal documents may be grounds for a new 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action.” (Dkt. # 101, Exh. 1). Plaintiff states further that “Ms. Olson will obviously be a

defendant,” in that action and that she and the Attorney General’s office will necessarily have to be

conflicted out of this action. (Id.). A review of the Order entered in Case No. C04-1484 reveals that

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 116 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 3

Plaintiff’s claims of inadequate access to law library and legal materials were dismissed with prejudice for

failure to state a claim. (Case No. C04-1484JCC Dkt. # 314, 315). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s vague

references to a future claim in which he may name either AAG Olson do not provide sufficient grounds

for disqualification in this action at this time.

 Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the Attorney General’s

Office (Dkt. #101) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to

counsel for Defendants.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 116 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 3