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

ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MART LIIKANE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., 

Defendants.

No. C05-1829RSL

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court under Local General Rule 8(c). Plaintiff has submitted an

affidavit of prejudice against Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik, which may be construed as a motion to

recuse Judge Lasnik from this case. (Dkt. No. 43). Judge Lasnik has declined to recuse himself

voluntarily and has referred this matter to the undersigned for review. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s

affidavit and the balance of the records in this case, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to recuse for

the reasons stated below.

As Judge Lasnik noted in declining to recuse himself from this matter, a judge must disqualify

himself or herself in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 455; see also 28 U.S.C. § 144 (permitting a party to submit an affidavit alleging bias

or prejudice against him or in favor of an adverse party). Here, Plaintiff alleges in his affidavit of

prejudice that Judge Lasnik:

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 47 Filed 09/27/06 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

ORDER - 2

[H]as been prejudical [sic], partial, bias [sic], and unfair in conducting this case. He has not

abided by his oath of office by not upholding to the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. He

has applied, without any legal authority from Congress, two different set of rules to the

litigants. On one hand favoring his fellow shysters and on the other the self representing law

abiding citizen.

(Dkt. No. 43 at 1). 

Plaintiff’s affidavit of prejudice does not refer to any specific actions by Judge Lasnik. 

However, in a pleading titled “Opposition to City of Seattle’s Motion to Compel” that was filed on the

same day as Plaintiff’s affidavit (Dkt. No. 44), Plaintiff appears to allege that Judge Lasnik exhibited

bias by denying a motion for default judgment that Plaintiff filed on March 23, 2006. 

The Court has reviewed Judge Lasnik’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. 

(Dkt. No. 33). Judge Lasnik denied this motion because: (1) all but one of the defendants had entered

appearances prior to Plaintiff’s filing of his motion for default and Plaintiff failed to give those

defendants written notice of his motion prior to filing, as required by Local Rule 55(a); and (2) for the

one defendant who had not appeared prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s default motion, it appeared that

Plaintiff had not served that entity in a manner authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 

In determining whether a judge must recuse himself or herself from a case, the test is “whether

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

reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983). The Supreme

Court has noted that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality

motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Instead, recusal is ordinarily required

“‘only if the bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source,’ and not from a judge’s conduct or

rulings during the course of judicial proceedings.” King v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.,

16 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir. 1994). Recusal is also warranted if a judge expresses opinions during a

proceeding that “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 47 Filed 09/27/06 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

ORDER - 3

Here, nothing in Judge Lasnik’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment reflects deepseated antagonism or favoritism, nor does the ruling suggest any reliance on extrajudicial sources. 

Although Plaintiff appears to allege that Judge Lasnik “conspiered [sic] with the defendants and their

shyster by commiting [sic] perjury in his ‘Order Denying Motion for Default,’” (Dkt. No. 44 at 4), this

allegation is wholly conclusory. 

In sum, there is no basis for the Court to find that a reasonable person with knowledge of all

the facts would conclude that Judge Lasnik’s impartiality in this matter might reasonably be

questioned. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to recuse Judge Lasnik from this matter is DENIED.

The clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff, to all counsel of record, and to

Judge Lasnik.

Dated: September 27, 2006.

s/Marsha J. Pechman 

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 47 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 3