United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CHANGE JUDGE AND ORDER OF
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Change of Judge (Dkt. #12) and the Court's July 25, 2017,
Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #10). Pro Se Plaintiff
Catalin Pamfile has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis in this matter. Dkt. #8. The Complaint
was posted on the docket on July 21, 2017. Dkt. #9. Summons
have not yet been issued. On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed
the instant Motion, which also contained his Response to the
Order to Show Cause. See Dkt. #12 at 6 (Plaintiff
refers to his filing as a “response” and notes
that it has been limited to 6 pages by the Court). The
deadline to file any other response to the Order to Show
Cause has passed.
initial matter, the Court will address Plaintiff's
“Motion… for Change of Judge.” Plaintiff
argues that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had before
the undersigned judge because the prior Order to Show Cause
“look [sic] very clear [sic] like a pre FINAL DECISION
CASE as quote from CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO
S. MARTINEZ: ‘IN RESPONSE TO THIS order, will require
dismissal.'” Dkt. #12 at 1 (misquoting Dkt #10 at
3). Plaintiff states that “the judgement of CHIEF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ can be
affected by 03 people of hispanics [sic] origins involved in
this case…. Also I request [the Court] take in
consideration 03 slavic speaking origin people involved in
this case…” Id. at 2. Plaintiff also
appears to argue the merits of his underlying case repeatedly
in this Motion.
U.S.C. § 455 requires a judge to “disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned, ” or where “he has a
personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
“[A] judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient
cause for recusal.” United States v. Studley,
783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Taylor v.
Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir.
1993) (“To warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem
from an extrajudicial source.”). Plaintiff provides no
legitimate reason why the Court's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned in this case, nor has the Court
identified any in its independent review of the record.
See Studley, 783 F.2d at 939. Accordingly, the
undersigned judge declines to voluntarily recuse himself.
Pursuant to the Local Rules for the Western District of
Washington, the Court will direct the Clerk to refer this
issue to the appropriate judge for further review.
See LCR 3(e).
Court next turns to the issues raised in its Order to Show
Cause. Plaintiff brought this action against the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (“HHS”) using a
standard form. Dkt. #9 at 1. Under “Jurisdiction,
” Plaintiff states only “because is about U.S.A.
Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).”
Id. at 2. Plaintiff provides no facts in the
Complaint, instead referring the Court to attached documents
totaling over 1, 700 pages. Id. at 2 - 3; see
also Dkts. #2 - #6. Plaintiff's attached documents
are, from the Court's perspective, organized in no
logical fashion and constitute random letters and personal
records of Plaintiff. From what the Court can discern,
Plaintiff requests, inter alia, that the Secretary
of Health and Human Services release Plaintiff's passport
so that Plaintiff can travel to Europe to eat food that does
not contain “a lot of chemicals… hormones,
pesticide….” See Dkt. #2-1 (filed under
seal). Plaintiff argues that “[t]he USA health care is
covering up poison food with chemicals; toxic houses with
fibber [sic] glass insulation, formaldehyde, mould [sic],
toxic threaded wood; environmental pollution.”
Id. Plaintiff's rambling attachments repeat
themselves and reference several nebulous government entities
that are persecuting Plaintiff. See, e.g., id. At
one point, Plaintiff states that his passport expired in
January 2016 and that his application for renewal was denied,
possibly because of an issue with “back child support
in Texas court.” Dkt. #4-11 at 1. Plaintiff accuses the
Texas Family Court and Texas Attorney General of abuse of
power and obstruction of justice. Id. Plaintiff
includes other seemingly unrelated claims in his filings,
including accusations of prostitution and money laundering
against his ex-wife. See Dkt. #5-1 (filed under
seal). Under the section of his Complaint titled
“Relief, ” Plaintiff again cites to the
attachments but also requests “release of my passport,
” “give me my constitution [sic] rights to take
care of my health in Europe.” Dkt. #9 at 4.
the above issues were pointed out in the Court's Order to
Show Cause, and Plaintiff was ordered to “write a short
and plain statement telling the Court (1) the laws or
statutes upon which his claims are based, (2) how Defendant
Secretary of Health and Human Services violated those laws or
statutes causing harm to Plaintiff, and (3) why this case
should not be dismissed as frivolous.” Dkt. #10 at 3.
Response, in addition to requesting a new judge, argues that
the Court misunderstands his claim, which is to
‘RELEASE MY PASSPORT blocked by Secretary of Health and
Human Services based on NULE=”0.00” [sic]
certified that I own child support.” Dkt. #12 at 2.
Plaintiff states that the Court “is asking for: statue
[sic], laws, rules, ……numbers, names, dates,
……. There are no laws, statues [sic] or not
even rules to be apply [sic] on regulatory factors of
chemical, hormones inside the food but POISON FOOD AND POISON
PEOPLE IS A CRIME.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff argues
that toxic houses, toxic air, and prostitution in marriage
are crimes, but fails to explain how Defendant Health and
Human Services violated specific laws or how Health and Human
Services is to blame for Plaintiff's inability to obtain
his passport. Plaintiff argues that “restricting of
citizen passport is JAIL TIME NOT FREEDOM, ” and cites
incoherently to “FREEDOM, ” “PERSUE [sic]
OF HAPPINESS, ” “DENIAL OF RIGHTS TO VOTE and
RIGHT TO FAIRL TRIAL.” Id. at 5.
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).
has failed to coherently answer the Court's questions.
Plaintiff's Complaint lacks a coherent fact pattern
connecting the actions of Defendant to an injury and lacks a
claim upon which relief can be granted under law. Instead,
Plaintiff's Complaint and Response give every indication
that his lawsuit is frivolous. The Court therefore concludes
that dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Judge (Dkt. #12) is
DENIED. In conformity with LCR 3(e), the Chief Judge refers
any order in which he or she has declined to recuse to
“the most active judge with the highest
seniority;” in this district that judge is the
Honorable Ronald B. Leighton of Tacoma. Accordingly, this
order is referred to Judge Leighton for review.
matter is DISMISSED.
Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at 2404