United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER (1) DECLINING TO RECUSE VOLUNTARILY, (2)
REFERRING MOTION TO CHIEF JUDGE, AND (3) STAYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
J. BRYAN United States District Judge.
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.
Court deems Plaintiffs motion, which refers to a "Ryan
Bryant, " to be a motion to recuse the undersigned.
Court has previously been assigned to a prior matter filed by
Plaintiff. Johnson v. ETCC, Cause No. C14-5872.
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.
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.
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:
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