Opinion
CASE NO. C15-2018RSM
03-03-2016
ANNE BLOCK, an individual, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, et al, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal of Judge Leighton [Dkt. #27].
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). "In the absence of specific allegations of personal bias, prejudice, or interest, neither prior adverse rulings of a judge nor his participation in a related or prior proceeding is sufficient" to establish bias. Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) ("judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.").
Plaintiff's allegations that Judge Leighton has read articles on Plaintiff's blog is patently false. The fact that Judge Leighton previously mentored one attorney who is a member of the WSBA, that the Judge is a WSBA judicial member, has taught CLEs, and has spoken at WSBA events, are not evidence of any bias or impropriety. Contrary to Plaintiff's claims, the remaining District Judges' mere WSBA membership does not impede their ability to preside impartially over a case in which the bar association is a party. Plaintiff has not raised any allegations that would indicate a judge's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455 (emphasis added). If the motion were granted, it would delay the dismissal of this frivolous action, resulting in further waste of the Court's and taxpayers' time and money. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Dated this3rd day of March, 2016.
/s/_________
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge