UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
March 20, 2012
CHARLES V MCCLAIN III,
BOEING COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANT. CHARLES V MCCLAIN III,
BOEING COMPANY, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: A Marsha J. Pechman Chief United States District Judge
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO RECUSE
This matter comes before the Court under Local General Rule 8(c). Plaintiff has two cases pending in front of U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. In both matters, Plaintiff moved for Judge Martinez to recuse himself. See Dkt. No. 126 (C07-567-RSM) and Dkt. No. 75 (C08-613-RSM). Judge Martinez declined to recuse himself voluntarily and the matter was referred to the Chief Judge. See Dkt. No. 136 (C07-567-RSM) and Dkt. No. 81 (C08-613-RSM).
Plaintiff's request is therefore ripe for review by this Court.
The standards for recusal are well known. Although a judge must recuse himself if a reasonable person would believe that he is unable to be impartial (Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993)), a litigant may not use the recusal process to remove a judge based on adverse rulings in the pending case: the alleged bias must result from an extra-judicial source (United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986)).
Plaintiff's motions are based entirely on Judge Martinez's rulings in Plaintiff's two matters before him, which Plaintiff contends are in error and adverse to his position. Plaintiff has alleged no extra-judicial source of prejudice. If he believes that Judge Martinez has issued erroneous rulings in his matter, he may request review by means of motions for reconsideration or appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; he is not entitled to have Judge Martinez recuse himself or be otherwise removed from these cases.
Plaintiff's motions to recuse Judge Martinez in both matters are DENIED.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and all counsel.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.