Recinos v. Wakenshaw
3:23-cv-05507
W.D. Wash.Nov 8, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Tiffany Recinos filed to proceed in forma pauperis and sued Timothy L. Wakenshaw, a Washington Board of Industrial Insurance administrative judge, alleging he failed to provide adequate relief in Labor & Industries/workers’ compensation matters.
- The Complaint alleged a Ninth Amendment violation but did not identify a federal statute or agency; Recinos listed a Washington address for Wakenshaw, so diversity was not shown.
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Recinos to explain federal jurisdiction, frivolousness concerns, duplicative litigation, and whether a later filing was an amendment; Recinos largely failed to respond.
- The district court denied a recusal request, dismissed Recinos’s Complaint with prejudice, and struck pending motions; Recinos nonetheless filed multiple additional documents and notices of appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit referred the case to the district court to determine whether Recinos’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status for appeal should continue or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.
- The district court concluded Recinos presented no nonfrivolous issue, certified the appeal as frivolous, and revoked IFP status for the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction (federal question / diversity) | Recinos alleged a Ninth Amendment violation; contends IFP guidelines met | No substantial federal question identified; parties not diverse (both in WA) | Court: No federal‑question or diversity jurisdiction shown; jurisdictional basis inadequate |
| Suit for writs/relief against state judge (mandamus) | Seeks relief for alleged denial of adequate relief; asserts appeal not frivolous | Mandamus to compel state official/court is frivolous as a matter of law | Court: Such mandamus claims are frivolous and lack an arguable basis in law |
| Judicial immunity for administrative judge | Claims judge failed to provide adequate relief from proceedings before him | Actions taken in judicial/administrative judicial capacity are protected by judicial immunity | Court: Judicial immunity bars Recinos’s claims against Wakenshaw |
| Good‑faith of appeal / IFP continuation | Recinos contends IFP guidelines are met and appeal is not frivolous | Appeal contains no nonfrivolous issues; not taken in good faith | Court: Appeal is frivolous, not in good faith; IFP status revoked |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) (good‑faith appeal requires at least one non‑frivolous issue)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Stone v. Baum, 409 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (D. Ariz. 2005) (judicial immunity extends to administrative judges)
- Janaszak v. State, 297 P.3d 723 (Wash. Ct. App.) (judicial immunity bars suits for judicial acts)