Tucker v. United States Postal Service

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CAROL TUCKER, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-5537-RAJ 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ON REVIEW OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL 10 v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.

13 On September 5, 2020, Plaintiff Carol Tucker filed a Motion seeking to disqualify the Honorable Richard A. Jones in this matter. Dkt. #38. On October 14, Judge Jones issued an Order declining to recuse himself and, in accordance with this Court’s Local Rules, referring that decision to the Chief Judge for review. Dkt. #45; LCR 3(f).

17 A judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). 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 21 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, “whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” “[A] judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (“To warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial source.”).

6 Ms. Tucker’s grounds for seeking recusal are the assertion that Judge Jones is “another Bush-appointed judge” who “intends to refuse to acknowledge the meritorious facts of this case.

8 See Dkt. #38 at 1. Ms. Tucker also attacks the substance of Judge Jones’s recent ruling denying her TRO motion. Id. at 1–2.

10 The Court finds that Ms. Tucker has failed to present any reasonable basis to grant the requested relief. The political party of the president who appointed a judge does not alone constitute a basis to reasonably question impartiality. Further, any prior adverse rulings are not sufficient cause for recusal. See Studley, supra. Ms. Tucker otherwise fails to present sufficient evidence of bias.

15 Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Judge Jones’s refusal to recuse himself from this matter, Dkt. #45, is AFFIRMED.

17 DATED this 16th day of October, 2020.

A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 20 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE