United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE AND REFERRING MOTION
TO CHIEF JUDGE
L. ROBART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is pro se Plaintiff Madiha Miner's motion to
“Cease & Desist Judge James L. Robart from
responding to all her cases due [to] bias.” (Mot. (Dkt.
# 3) at 1.) The court liberally construes Ms. Miner's
motion as a motion to recuse. The court has considered the
motion to recuse and DENIES it for the reasons set forth
below. The court further DIRECTS the Clerk to refer the
motion to Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez for further review.
than four months, Ms. Miner has filed or removed to this
court 11 cases in which she has requested leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”).
Miner's first case in this District was assigned to the
Honorable John C. Coughenour. See Miner v. Soc. Sec.
Admin. Disability, No. C19-0505JCC (W.D. Wash.)
(“No. C19-0505JCC”). Judge Coughenour dismissed
Ms. Miner's case on July 8, 2019. (No. C19-0505JCC, Dkt.
## 13 (order), 14 (judgment).) Ms. Miner, nevertheless,
continued to file motions in that proceeding, including one
to “Cease & Desist Judge James L Robart from
responding to all her cases due [to] bias . . . .”
(Id. Dkt. ## 15 (motion to appoint counsel); 18
(motion regarding Judge Robart, etc.).)
of Ms. Miner's cases is pending before the Honorable
Richard L. Jones. See Miner v. Issaquah Police Dep't,
et al., No. C19-0823RAJ (“No. C19-0823RAJ”).
Ms. Miner presently has 12 pending motions filed in that
action, including a motion to “Cease & Desist
Judges James L. Robart from responding to all her cases due
[to] bias . . . .” (No. 19-0823RAJ, Dkt. ## 9-14,
18-21, 23, 24 (motion regarding Judge Robart, etc.).)
remainder of Ms. Miner's cases are assigned to the
undersigned judge. The court remanded four of Ms. Miner's
cases to King County Superior Court because Ms. Miner had
removed her own cases from state court and, accordingly, the
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Miner v.
Culjat, No. C19-0846JLR (W.D. Wash.); Miner v. King
Cty. Superior Court - Juvenile, No. C19-0847JLR (W.D.
Wash.); Miner v. King Cty. Hous. Auth. Section
Eight, No. C19-0848JLR (W.D. Wash.); Miner v.
Issaquah Police Dep't, No. C19-0849JLR
(W.D. Wash.). The court further consolidated two of Ms.
Miner's actions, see Miner v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
No. C19-0821JLR (W.D. Wash.) (“No. C19-0821JLR”);
Miner v. King Cty. Hous. Auth. Section 8, No.
C19-0822JLR, and on July 10, 2019, issued an order to show
cause in the consolidated cases why the court should not
enter a vexatious litigant order against Ms. Miner and impose
litigation restrictions upon her in the Western District of
Washington (see No. C19-0821JLR, Dkt. # 17)).
8, 2019, Ms. Miner filed three additional actions. See
Miner v. Kanner, No. C19-1047JLR (W.D. Wash.)
(“No. C19-1047JLR”); Miner v. U.S. Fed.
Gov't, No. C19-1048JLR (W.D. Wash.) (“No.
C19-1048JLR”); Miner v. King Cty. Superior
Court, No. C19-1049JLR (W.D. Wash.) (“No.
C19-1049JLR”). In two of these cases, Ms. Miner has
filed motions “to Cease & Desist Judge James L
Robart from responding to all her cases due [to] bias . . .
.” (See No. C19-1047JLR, Dkt. # 3; No.
C19-1048JLR, Dkt. # 5.)
court liberally construes all of Ms. Miner's motions
concerning the undersigned judge, including the one in this
case, as motions to recuse. Under the court's Local Civil
Rules, “[w]henever a motion to recuse directed at a
judge of this court is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144
or 28 U.S.C. § 455, the challenged judge will review the
motion papers and decide whether to recuse
voluntarily.” See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR
3(f). “If the challenged judge decides not to
voluntarily recuse, he or she will direct the clerk to refer
the motion to the chief judge, or the chief judge's
substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144
and 28 U.S.C. § 455 is the same: Whether a reasonable
person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that
the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.” United States v. McTiernan, 695
F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Other than stating that she seeks the
undersigned's removal “due [to] bias” and
that it “is unheard of” for all of her cases to
be “transferred to ONE judge, ” Ms. Miner
identifies no basis for recusal. (See Mot. at 1.)
Specifically, she does not allege facts to support the
contention that the undersigned judge is presiding over a
case in which his “impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, ” McTiernan, 695 F.3d at 891;
see also 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), “has a
personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding, ” id. § 455(b)(1); see
also id. § 144, served as a lawyer in this
controversy while in private practice, id. §
455(b)(2), or has a financial interest in this litigation,
id. § 455(b)(3)-(4). In addition, the court
cannot independently conceive of a basis for recusal. For
these reasons, the court DENIES Ms. Miner's recusal
motion and DIRECTS the Clerk to refer this order and Ms.
Miner's motion to Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.
reasons set forth above, the court DENIES Ms. Miner's
motion to recuse (Dkt. # 3) and DIRECTS the Clerk to refer
this order and Ms. Miner's motion to ...