United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND ORDER TO SHOW
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Se Plaintiff Masoud Khazali has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #4.
The Complaint was posted on the docket on July 24, 2017. Dkt.
#5. Summons have not yet been issued.
initial matter, Plaintiff brings a Motion for “Recusal
and Direct Review by Jury.” Dkt. #6. Plaintiff
“request[s] this case to be reviewed directly by a 12
member jury because Federal judges cannot defend their own
colleagues at their own court against immigrants whom their
States have been abusing for more than 200 years!”
Id. Plaintiff makes tangential references to slavery
and the bible. Plaintiff ends with a conciliatory
parenthetical: “(Judges could read the document and
issue corrective orders to correct the previous
orders).” Id. The Court finds that Plaintiff
has presented insufficient evidence to support a request for
recusal. Plaintiff does not request that any one judge be
recused, but that all judges generally recuse themselves;
this is not relief that can be granted. The Court notes that
Plaintiff is apparently satisfied with this Court's
authority to hear this case as long as it rules in
Plaintiff's favor; this further persuades the Court that
denial is appropriate. Plaintiff's allegations, similar
to those in his Complaint described below, appear frivolous.
Accordingly, this Motion will be denied.
brings this action against the Honorable James. L. Robart,
United States District Judge. Id. at 1. Plaintiff
states that Judge Robart “acted unconstitutional [sic]
by helping Kidnapping [sic] the child of the immigrant (and
the U.S. citizen) Mr. Khazali, ” and that Judge Robart
“supports and promotes such a crime act by promoting
Christianity that confirms the act of the Kidnapping and
slavery of immigrant children (in its book of Bible) and by
working for the States that names its Capital, State,
university, currency and stamp after the slave master
(Washington) who supported the Kidnapping of immigrant
children and the Slavery.” Id. Plaintiff goes
on to attack our nation's first president, George
Washington, for crimes such as murdering French while serving
as an English military officer and using “arms and
explosives to fight the then current Government [during the
American Revolution]; an act of terrorism.”
Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Robart
“supports Kidnapping, child abuse, slavery, gender and
racial inequality, and terrorism as long as his work place
symbolizes Washington and names its capital after such a
criminal and prints its currency in the name of such criminal
terrorist…” Id. Plaintiff's views
on George Washington and Christianity surface repeatedly and
unexpectedly in the Complaint. Plaintiff appears to bring
this lawsuit based on Judge Robart's denial of
Plaintiff's motion for a stay in a prior or concurrent
action. See Id. at 3. Plaintiff argues that
“judges should not be allowed to preside over the
conflicts between a citizen and a State (Or the
States)” and that “no court should oversee a
conflict between a court and a citizen.” Id.
includes the following attachments to his Complaint:
“The Kidnap Loving State, ” which provides a sort
of history of slavery in the United States; “The State
of the Claim, ” which provides some procedural
background, “The Tort of the Court, ” which
appears at first glance to allege violations of the
Constitution committed by various courts, but actually
attempts to connect modern court procedures like asking
witnesses to raise their right hand or hearing testimony from
witnesses to ancient religious practices; “Life: the
Live Connection through Space, ” which engages in a
metaphysical discussion of “invisible energy” and
“hidden life in light;” “The Immune
Executioner, ” which discusses injury to the Plaintiff,
including Plaintiff “los[ing] his mind, ” caused
by the separation of Plaintiff from his child;
“Prevention of Abuse, ” broadly discussing his
claim; and “Valuing Property over Humanity, ”
which accuses the Court of continuing historic practices of
slavery. See Id. at 5-18.
Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action
fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Complaint does not clearly identify what laws or statues
Plaintiff believes give rise to a claim against Judge Robart,
and Plaintiff does not support his claims with specific facts
presented in a clear and understandable manner.
Plaintiff's allegations are extremely difficult to follow
with unconnected facts and broad sweeping accusations of
crime connected to unrelated historical events or possibly
official court actions. It is unclear from the Complaint how
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, why Judge Robart
would not be immune from suit, or even what relief Plaintiff
all of the above, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a
claim and appears frivolous and malicious. Plaintiff's
Complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not adequately
explained in response to this Order, will require dismissal.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Response to this Order, Plaintiff must write a short and
plain statement telling the Court (1) the laws, statutes, or
specific portions of the Constitution upon which his claims
are based, (2) how Defendant violated those laws or statutes
causing harm to Plaintiff, and (3) why this case should not
be dismissed as frivolous. This Response may not exceed six
(6) pages. Plaintiff is not permitted to file additional
pages as attachments. The Court will take no further action
in this case until Plaintiff has submitted this Response.
Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (Dkt. #6) is DENIED.
Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause
containing the detail above no later than twenty-one (21)
days from the date of this Order. Failure to file this
Response will result in dismissal of this case. The Clerk
shall send a copy ...