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

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

AL NERIO, et al.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-5340RJB

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Appeal to a Judge of Dkt #66 #67

Orders.” Dkt. 80. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to

the motion and the file herein.

On January 29, 2007, Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold entered an Order Granting

Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order Regarding Discovery. Dkt. 66. On the same day,

Judge Arnold also entered an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Discovery Without

Prejudice and Denying Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order as Moot. Dkt. 67. On

February 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed the motion at issue. Dkt. 80. Plaintiff states that “some discovery

should have been allowed . . . but none has.” Id. He alleges that the “prejudice and bias” of

Judge Arnold is the cause of unreasonable discovery restrictions, and he asks Judge Arnold to

recuse himself. Id. Plaintiff does not directly ask the Court to review the orders entered by Judge

Arnold on January 29, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 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

A. Rule 72(a) Objection

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), upon objection by a party to a pretrial order of a magistrate

judge, the district judge shall consider the objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of

the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

Having reviewed the record and considered plaintiff’s objections, the Court does not find

that Judge Arnold’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order Regarding

Discovery (Dkt. 66) was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Likewise, the Court does not find

that Judge Arnold’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Conduct Discovery Without Prejudice

and Denying Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order as Moot (Dkt. 67) was clearly erroneous

or contrary to law. To the extend Plaintiff moves the court for review of these orders, Plaintiff’s

“Appeal to a Judge of Dkt #66 #67 Orders” (Dkt. 80) should be denied. 

B. Motion for Recusal

28 U.S.C. § 144 provides in relevant part as follows:

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 bias

or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the

term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure

to file it within such time.

Plaintiff has failed to meet even the basic requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 144. Plaintiff is

a frequent litigator; so frequent, the Court has entered a Case Management Order restricting

Plaintiff’s abuse of litigation. Plaintiff is fully aware of the Civil and Local Rules governing a

motion for recusal and has failed to comply. To the extent Plaintiff makes a Motion for Recusal

of Judge Arnold, the motion should be stricken.

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Appeal to a Judge of Dkt #66 #67 Orders” (Dkt. 80) is

DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal of Judge Arnold (Dkt. 80) is STRICKEN.

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 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

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 26th day of February, 2007.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 90 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 3