Sahm v. Ali

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE TERI KEALOHA SAHM, Case No. C22-1131 RSM Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE 11 v. KARIM ALI, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Teri Kealoha Sahm’s Motion for Reassignment of Judge and Expedited Injunction. Dkt. #11. The Court considers the motion as a motion to recuse. Ms. Sahm states that the undersigned judge presided in a case she previously filed and issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Id. at 1–2 (citing Sahm v. Onslow Bay Financial LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02090-RSM).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Federal judges also 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). However, “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.”).

3 As the Court reads Ms. Sahm’s Motion, she is relying solely on this Court’s prior adverse ruling in a separate matter as evidence of bias. This is insufficient to warrant recusal.

See Studley, supra; Taylor, supra. Ms. Sahm presents no reasonable basis to question impartiality. Accordingly, the undersigned judge declines to voluntarily recuse himself.

8 Ms. Sahm also seeks an expedited review of her requested injunction (Dkt. #8), which is currently noted for consideration on September 30, 2022. See Dkt. #11 at 2. The Court denies Ms. Sahm’s request for expedited review as her motion will be ripe in two days’ time anyway.

13 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 15 1. Ms. Sahm’s Motion for Reassignment of Judge and Expedited Injunction (Dkt. #1) is DENIED.

2. In accordance with LCR 3(f), this Order is referred to the Honorable David G.

19 Estudillo, the chief judge in this District, for review of this decision. The Clerk 20 is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Judge Estudillo.

DATED this 28th day of September 2022.

24 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE