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

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

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

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al., )

)

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). 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). On April 30, 2007, this Court denied

plaintiff’s request to remove Judge Strombom (Dkt. #115). Plaintiff then moved for

reconsideration of this order, and the matter was again referred to the Chief Judge for review. 

See Motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #117); May 14, 2007 docket minute entry referring the

motion to the Chief Judge. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore ripe for review by

this Court. 

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district, and the “court will ordinarily

deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing

of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 135 Filed 06/27/07 Page 1 of 2
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

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -2-

earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Plaintiff claims this Court’s prior

ruling was “manifest error” because it “failed to provide an opinion regarding whether

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom is in violation for been [sic] assigned to plaintiff’s current

case because she previously presided over that plaintiff’s previous civil right[s] actions regarding

defendant Doug Waddington[.]” Motion at 2-3. In ruling on plaintiff’s “Affidavit of Prejudice,”

the Court considered paragraph two, which states: “I have had the Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom in all of my 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights actions . . . which [sic] both cases were

recommended to be dismissed by this judge.” See Dkt. #110 at ¶2.

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, however, there was no manifest error in the Court’s

April 30, 2007 “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Remove Judge Strombom.” Plaintiff’s

objection to Judge Strombom’s assignment to this case is not a “violation” justifying recusal

because conduct in the course of judicial proceedings, including prior judicial proceedings, does

not constitute the requisite bias under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 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. Accordingly, plaintiff has not met his burden under Local Civil Rule

7(h)(1) because his motion does not present any new facts or legal authority that was not raised

in his initial recusal motion and he has not shown “manifest error” in the Court’s prior ruling.

Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (Dkt.

#117) is DENIED. 

DATED this 27th day of June, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 135 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 2