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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO REMOVE JUDGE STROMBOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

KEITH L. NASH, ) No. C06-5127-RJB-KLS

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

) REQUEST TO REMOVE

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al., ) JUDGE STROMBOM

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court under Local General Rule 8(c). On April 13, 2007,

plaintiff Keith L. Nash filed an “Affidavit of Prejudice” (Dkt. #110). On April 19, 2007, the

Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, declined to recuse herself

voluntarily and the matter was referred to the Chief Judge for review (Dkt. #112). Plaintiff’s

motion is therefore ripe for review by this Court. 

Section 455 of title 28 of the United States Code governs the disqualification of a district

judge. It states in relevant part: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States

shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.” Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 144, pertaining to judicial bias or prejudice, provides:

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and

sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal

bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge

shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such

proceeding. The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 115 Filed 04/30/07 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

1

 Objections to a judge’s decisions are properly raised through an appeal, not a motion to recuse.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO REMOVE JUDGE STROMBOM -2-

bias or prejudice exists[.]

A judge must recuse herself if a reasonable person would believe that she is unable to be

impartial. Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). This is an objective

inquiry regarding whether there is an appearance of bias, not whether there is bias in fact. 

Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d

869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (explaining

the narrow bases for recusal). A litigant cannot, however, use the recusal process to remove a

judge based on adverse rulings in the pending case: the alleged bias must result from an

extrajudicial source. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986).1

In his “Affidavit of Prejudice,” however, plaintiff does not identify any extrajudicial

source of the alleged impartiality: the only suggestion of bias relates to Judge Strombom’s

decisions regarding noting dates and the timeliness of filings in this matter. See Dkt. #110 at 2-

3. In such circumstances, the risk that the litigant is using the recusal motion for strategic

purposes is considerable. See Ex Parte Am. Steel Barrel Co. and Seaman, 230 U.S. 35, 44

(1913). Because a judge’s conduct in the context of judicial proceedings does not constitute the

requisite bias under § 144 or § 455 if it is prompted solely by information that the judge received

in the context of the performance of her duties as the presiding judicial officer, plaintiff has not

met the burden of showing an appearance of bias. 

Having reviewed plaintiff Keith L. Nash’s motion and the remainder of the record, the

Court finds that Judge Strombom’s impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned. There being

no evidence of bias or prejudice, plaintiff’s request to remove Judge Strombom from this matter

(Dkt. #110) is DENIED.

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 115 Filed 04/30/07 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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO REMOVE JUDGE STROMBOM -3-

DATED this 30th day of April, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 115 Filed 04/30/07 Page 3 of 3