United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion made
to both the Undersigned Judge and the Magistrate Judge to
whom this case is currently assigned, seeking that they
recuse themselves from this case. Dkt. #7. This motion has
been referred to the Undersigned to the extent it seeks the
Undersigned's recusal. For the reasons set forth herein,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
has filed numerous Complaints in this Court. Most recently
before the Undersigned, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus claiming that a 2002 criminal judgment is
invalid because it does not name “Allah©” as
the defendant. See Allah v. Washington Supreme Court, et
al., No. C17-0458RSM, Dkt. #10 at 7-8. Plaintiff further
claimed that the Washington Department of Corrections has no
records naming “Allah©” as a defendant, and
that his current confinement is therefore unlawful. See
Allah v. Washington Supreme Court, et al., No.
C17-0458RSM, Dkt. #10 at 7-8. Plaintiff therefore
asked that this Court compel the judges of the Washington
Supreme Court and the Washington Court of Appeals, Divisions
I and III, to dismiss the 2002 King County case “for
lack of jurisdiction and malicious prosecution.”
Id. at 4.
reviewing the Petition, the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler,
United States District Judge, determined that it was
deficient in that Plaintiff failed to clearly articulate a
viable constitutional claim, and he failed to show that any
constitutional claims pertaining to his 2002 judgment have
been properly exhausted in the state courts. Judge Theiler
also determined that the Petition, even if it did identify a
viable claim for relief, was likely barred by the federal
statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Accordingly, on May 9, 2017, Judge Theiler issued an Order
directing Plaintiff to show cause why his Petition should not
be dismissed as time barred. Id., Dkt. #11. Judge
Theiler noted in the Order to Show Cause that although it is
not entirely clear when Plaintiff's 2002 state court
judgment became final, the materials available to this Court
suggest it was approximately 15 years ago, well beyond the
one year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d). Id. After receiving Plaintiff's
response to the Order to Show Cause, Judge Theiler issued her
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),
recommending that this Court dismiss the Petition as
untimely. Id., Dkt. #13 at 3.
12, 2017, this Court entered an Order approving and adopting
Judge Theiler's R&R. Id., Dkt. #16.
Accordingly, this action was dismissed as untimely and the
certificate of appealability was denied. Id. This
matter was then closed.
then filed several supplemental briefs, including a Motion
for Immediate Relief and a Supplemental Rule 60 Motion.
Allah v. Washington Supreme Court, et al., No.
C17-0458RSM, Dkts. #18-#23. The gist of those motions
appeared to be that this Court is not a real court, the
Judges are not real judges, Allah is a sovereign citizen not
subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, and Allah is God
and therefore cannot be judged. Id. The Court denied
the motions and the matter remains closed. Id., Dkt.
now moves the Undersigned to recuse himself from this case
based on his prior Order adopting Judge Theiler's
R&R, and other Orders on his cases in this Court. Dkt. #7
(in the instant matter). With respect to the Undersigned,
Plaintiff asserts that he is “a liar, ” a
“devil” and a “creep, ” and that
because Plaintiff's state court judgments are invalid,
the Undersigned will “lie and dismiss [this] Case to
save everyone and keep Allah©, illegally imprisoned by
their Fellow creeps.” Id. at 2.
to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”
Federal judges also shall disqualify themselves in
circumstances where they have a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. §
both 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). This is an objective inquiry
concerned with whether there is the appearance of bias, not
whether there is bias in fact. Preston v. United
States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir.1992);
United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869,
881 (9th Cir.1980). In Liteky v. United States, 510
U.S. 540 (1994), the United States Supreme Court further
explained the narrow basis for recusal:
[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid
basis for a bias or partiality motion. . . . [O]pinions
formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or
events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or
of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or
partiality motion unless they display a deep seated
favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible. Thus, judicial remarks during the course of a
trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile
to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not
support a bias or partiality challenge.
Id. at 555.
instant motion, Plaintiff fails to allege facts or behavior
by the Court demonstrating bias towards him. Plaintiff makes
a passing reference that the Undersigned “is a
Defendant” and therefore shall recuse himself; however,
the Court notes that only one Defendant has been named in
this action and that person is not a federal judge.
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse (Dkt. #7) is DENIED to
the extent it seeks recusal ...