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.

Johnson v. Electronic Transaction Consultants

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

March 13, 2018

BRENDA JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION CONSULTANTS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER (1) DECLINING TO RECUSE VOLUNTARILY, (2) REFERRING MOTION TO CHIEF JUDGE, AND (3) STAYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

          ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs "Motion to Rescue [szc]." Dkt. 20. Also pending is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. 22. The Court has reviewed the motion and the remaining file.

         The Court deems Plaintiffs motion, which refers to a "Ryan Bryant, " to be a motion to recuse the undersigned.

         The Court has previously been assigned to a prior matter filed by Plaintiff. Johnson v. ETCC, Cause No. C14-5872.

         Plaintiff filed this matter on December 6, 2017, seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 1. After giving Plaintiff the opportunity to remedy dispositive defects in the Proposed Complaint, which the Court identified in an Order to Show Cause, Dkt. 4, on February 20, 2018, the Court denied the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 17. Rather than dismissing the case without prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to remedy dispositive defects, the Court gave Plaintiff the option of proceeding with the case at her own expense, by paying the filing fee by March 20, 2018. Dkt. 17.

         Plaintiff filed the motion to recuse on March 9, 2018. She also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the February 20, 2018 Order denying the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 22.

         In its substantive content, the motion to recuse predominantly quotes statutes and case law. See Dkt. 22. Plaintiff requests a "change of judge as a matter of right" under RCW 4.12.040 and .050, but the statutory mechanism invoked, the notice of disqualification, originates in State law, not federal law, and is inapplicable to federal courts, including this Court. The motion also states:

         Facts presented:

1. Judge refused Plaintiff an attorney.
2. Proceeded with a case notice to remove outside preliminary of 30 days.
3. Refused default judgment when fraud was indicated. Called plaintiff out of name by belittling her.
4. Dismissed case without probable cause by misquoting statute stating plaintiff statute of limitations had expired. The law states different. . .
5. Misquoted law to favor defendants stating statute of limitations was up. This would be considered malpractice and ...

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.