Stafne v. Burnside

• Decision Date: 01 April 2022
• Docket Number: C16-0753-JCC
• Parties: SCOTT ERIK STAFNE, Plaintiff, v. FREDERICK BENJAMIN BURNSIDE, et al., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

SCOTT ERIK STAFNE, Plaintiff,
v.
FREDERICK BENJAMIN BURNSIDE, et al., Defendant.

No. C16-0753-JCC

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

April 1, 2022

MINUTE ORDER

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, JUDGE

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge:

Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for recusal (Dkt. No. 35). A federal judge must “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, ” “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(1). A judge must disqualify under these provisions if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Persnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008)). “Absent a factual showing of a reasonable basis for questioning his or her impartiality, or allegations of facts establishing other disqualifying circumstances, a judge should participate in cases assigned.” Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

1

“Conclusory statements” or a party's “unsupported beliefs and assumptions” do not require a judge to recuse. Id.

Here, Plaintiff's asserted basis for recusal is that Senior District Judges cannot exercise federal judicial power because the statutory framework governing senior status violates the life tenure requirement of Article III of the Constitution. (See generally Dkt. No. 35.) Courts have rejected Plaintiff's theory repeatedly:

Mr. Scott Stafne, has-unsuccessfully-attacked the ability of senior judges to adjudicate cases and attempted to disqualify senior jurists in two previous cases in the Western District of Washington, both of which were affirmed . . . by the Ninth Circuit

Like the courts that have previously considered this issue the court finds Plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to “senior status” meritless. See Bank of N.Y Mellon v. Stafne, 824 Fed.Appx. 536, 536 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[Mr. Stafne's] argument that the senior district judge who heard his case was a ‘retired judge' merely ‘acting as an Article

...