The Court also finds unfounded Plaintiff's argument-apparently frequently advanced by Plaintiff's counsel in numerous cases and rejected-that, upon a party's request, a senior judge must recuse himself in light of that judge's purported lack of judicial authority under the Constitution. See, e.g., Bank of New York Mellon v. Stafne, 824 Fed.Appx. 536, 536 (9th Cir. 2020); Stafne v. Burnside, 2022 WL 2073074, at *1-3 (W.D. Wash. June 9, 2022); Hoang v. Bank of America, N.A., 2021 WL 615299, at *4-5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 17, 2021); Stafne v. Zilly, 337 F.Supp.3d 1079, 1084, 1087-88 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2018); United States v. Bigley, 2017 WL 3432370, at *3-4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 10, 2017).
The argument has been squarely rejected every time, as have similar arguments raised by others. See Booth v. United States, 291 U.S. 339, 351 (1934); Bank of New York Mellon v. Stafne, 824 Fed.Appx. 536, 536 (9th Cir. 2020); Steckel v. Lurie, 185 F.2d 921, 924-25 (6thCir. 1950); Stafne v. Burnside, C16-0753-JCC, 2022 WL 2073074 (W.D. Wash. June 9, 2022); Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C17-0874JLR, 2021 WL 615299, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 17, 2021). At this point, counsel's senior status argument cannot be justified by a reasonable hope that existing law will be extended, modified, reversed, or changed in his favor.
The argument has been squarely rejected every time, as have similar arguments raised by others. See Booth v. United States, 291 U.S. 339, 351 (1934); Bank of New York Mellon v. Stafne, 824 Fed.Appx. 536, 536 (9th Cir. 2020); Steckel v. Lurie, 185 F.2d 921, 924-25 (6thCir. 1950); Stafne v. Burnside, C16-0753-JCC, 2022 WL 2073074 (W.D. Wash. June 9, 2022); Hoang v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C17-0874JLR, 2021 WL 615299, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 17, 2021). At this point, counsel's senior status argument cannot be justified by a reasonable hope that existing law will be extended, modified, reversed, or changed in his favor.