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

KEITH L. NASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5127 RJB/KLS

ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

RECUSAL

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 is an individual seeking damages in a civil

lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Affidavit of Prejudice,” pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 144. (Dkt. # 110). 

 

I. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144:

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.

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

proceeding in which her impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” A federal judge also shall

disqualify herself in circumstances where she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 112 Filed 04/20/07 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

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). 

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

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

reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th 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 States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881

(9th Cir.1980). In Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994), the United States Supreme Court further

explained the narrow basis for recusal: 

[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.

Id. at 555. 

This Court makes rulings in each case based upon the issues presented by the parties or upon sua

sponte review by the Court. 

In this case, Plaintiff claims that the undersigned has entered orders demonstrating “bias and

favoritism for the opposing party and weighing a fair proceeding against [Plaintiff] as a pro se litigant.” 

(Dkt. # 110 at 2). The undersigned has no personal bias or reason to be partial to one side or the other in

this matter and accordingly, the undersigned finds no reason to recuse herself voluntarily from this case,

and declines to do so. 

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned submits that there is no reasonable basis for a voluntary

recusal in this instance. However, Plaintiff’s affidavit shall be referred to the Chief Judge for a

determination of its merits, pursuant to Local General Rule 8. 

Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED that the undersigned DECLINES to recuse voluntarily. 

Plaintiff’s motion for recusal of the undersigned is REFERRED to Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik for

decision and the Clerk of the Court is directed to place the motion for the recusal of the undersigned on

Judge Lasnik’s motion calender.

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 112 Filed 04/20/07 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

This action, and all motions currently pending before the Court are hereby STAYED pending

resolution of the recusal issue. No further motions shall be filed in this matter until the stay is lifted. 

Any motion filed while the matter is stayed shall not be considered and shall be dismissed. 

The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for Defendants.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 112 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 3