Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCracken v. Shapiro & Sutherland LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

February 8, 2018

ELLEN M MCCRACKEN, Plaintiff,
v.
SHAPIRO & SUTHERLAND LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER [Dkt. #s 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 & 39]

          Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on nine motions filed by pro se Plaintiff McCracken:

         • “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Against Defendant(s) Leighton And His Clerks Until Oral Argument Heard By Chief Judge Martinez” [Dkt. # 31].

         McCracken asks this Court to restrain itself from hearing any of the motions she has filed in this case until Judge Martinez can hear them, instead:

THIS IS A DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST ALL FURTHER HARASSMENT
THERE IS ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED OF THIS ISSUE IN FRONT OF
CHIEF JUDGE MARTINEZ
PLEASE CONTAIN YOURSELVES UNTIL THIS ISSUE IS HEARD BY CHIEF JUDGE MARTINEZ

[Dkt. #31 at 6]. But this case is not assigned to Judge Martinez, and there is no oral argument scheduled before him in this matter. McCracken's prior effort [Dkt. # 19] to force this Court to Recuse was denied [Dkt. # 20], and affirmed by Judge Martinez [Dkt. #25]. The Motion is frivolous and it is DENIED.

Motion to Reassign Case” [Dkt. # 32].

         This is a variation on the same theme. McCracken argues that she is not asking the Court to recuse itself; she is instead notifying the Court that she has already determined that it is disqualified:

         • NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION OF A JUDGE is not a Motion to Recuse [Dkt. # 32 at 1] But that is not how it works. A litigant does not get to choose which Judge is assigned to her case, and it is well-settled that judicial rulings alone “almost never” constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Nor is McCracken's strategy of suing the Court a legitimate basis for obtaining recusal or disqualification. A judge is not disqualified merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue him. Such an easy method for obtaining disqualification should not be encouraged or allowed. See Ronwin v. State Bar of Arizona, 686 F.2d 692, 701 (9th Cir.1981), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558 (1984) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). See also U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986) (the alleged prejudice warranting recusal “must result from an extrajudicial source; a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal”)

         The Motion to Reassign is DENIED.

         “Motion to Expedite Emergency Appointment of Counsel in Criminal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.