Tacoma judge ordered to remove himself from ‘entangled’ case that caused rift in court
A Pierce County judge has ordered that a Tacoma Municipal Court judge recuse himself from the case of a man who has been caught up in a judicial dispute that is before the state Supreme Court.
The man has been waiting a year and four months to be sentenced in Municipal Court.
“The length of the delay is excessive,” Superior Court Judge Thomas Quinlan said at a hearing May 7.
This week Quinlan signed an order granting the man’s request for a writ of mandamus, ordering that Municipal Court Judge David Ladenburg recuse himself from the case so that the defendant can be sentenced by another judge May 17.
“He need not be, should not be, and cannot be left in legal and constitutional limbo,” Quinlan said, acknowledging that the man’s request was an “extraordinary remedy.”
Quinlan said the defendant had been “entangled” in an “internal management dispute.”
Ladenburg had previously asked the state Supreme Court for a ruling that would allow him to regain control of the case, which he argued Municipal Court Presiding Judge Drew Ann Henke improperly transferred to another courtroom. The high court’s decision is pending.
Ladenburg filed a motion for summary judgment asking Quinlan to dismiss the man’s claims, and, if that wasn’t granted, a motion to stay the proceedings until the Supreme Court makes its ruling. Quinlan denied both.
“This has gone on too long,” Quinlan said.
The defendant’s petition seeking an order for Ladenburg to recuse himself gave this account of what happened:
The man was charged with domestic violence-related malicious mischief and violation of a protection order, and there was a stipulated order of continuance in the case in 2017, meaning the case would eventually be dismissed if he followed various conditions.
Then he was charged with two other domestic violence cases, which were assigned to different judges.
Ladenburg revoked the defendant’s continuance based on the two new cases, found the defendant guilty and sentenced him in 2018, according to court records. The defendant appealed, and the Superior Court reversed, finding that Ladenburg didn’t have the authority to do that without a prosecutor’s motion. The Superior Court remanded the case to Ladenburg, who reinstated the continuance.
Then the man was charged with a fourth case, and in that matter a jury acquitted him.
“The city moved to revoke based on those allegations, regardless of the not guilty verdict,” the defendant’s petition said.
By then the man had three stipulated orders of continuance, and presiding Judge Henke granted his motion to consolidate those cases, which were sent to Municipal Court Judge Dwayne Christopher for a revocation hearing.
Instead Ladenburg held a revocation hearing Jan. 15, 2020 in the initial case.
The defendant objected, arguing that the cases had been ordered consolidated before another judge, and that there hadn’t been sufficient time to get and review transcripts of the trial.
Ladenburg revoked the defendant’s continuance and scheduled a sentencing hearing.
“... these facts, taken together, would suggest to a disinterested observer that the court may not have been neutral,” the man’s petition said.
Henke wrote Ladenburg after the hearing that she’d only told him to proceed if everyone was ready.
“The case is not properly before you and you should not proceed with a sanctions hearing,” her email said in part.
Ladenburg replied that he didn’t believe she had the authority to remove a case from his court, and he proceeded to file his Supreme Court petition.
Meanwhile, the man’s initial case has been stayed.
He filed a motion for Ladenburg to recuse himself Oct. 8, 2020. Instead of ruling, Ladenburg said he’d wait for the Supreme Court opinion.
The man asked for recusal again at a hearing Jan. 27.
“Again, Judge Ladenburg has refused to take action,” his petition said. “No adequate remedy exists at this time as there is no order or ruling that can be appealed, and he has remained unsentenced but subject to conditions of release since Jan. 15, 2020.”
One of man’s recent court filings called the situation unprecedented.
“... Judge Ladenburg’s decision to engage in litigation against the presiding judge of this trial court without (the defendant) and then unilaterally delay his case is itself sufficient to raise a claim,” the filing said. “The impropriety of a Judge inserting themselves into a litigation alone is alarming. Combined with the prior overturned revocation, prior rulings in the matter, various other issues and the inexplicable refusal to allow (the defendant) to proceed, the violation of the appearance of fairness is clearly established.”
The man argued he has a right to an impartial judge.
“It is worth emphasizing that due process requires an appearance of fairness; whether Judge Ladenburg believes that he is fair is irrelevant; the appearance of fairness is a Due Process right of a criminal defendant,” his recent filing said. “No further fact finding is needed. If Judge Ladenburg wished for his reasoning to be known, he could have issued a ruling and made a record of such. As he has failed to act as required, the decision must now be made for Judge Ladenburg ... .”
Ladenburg’s motion asking for the man’s claims to be dismissed argued that he hasn’t shown his constitutional due process rights were violated by the judge’s alleged impartiality.
In asking Quinlan for a stay, Ladenburg argued the Supreme Court would likely do one of two things.
If they uphold the order consolidating the cases in front of Judge Christopher, his motion said, Ladenburg won’t have authority over the case. If they reverse the order, Judge Christopher won’t.
That decision needs to be made before the cases can go forward, he argued, and could come anytime.
“A ruling in the instant matter requiring Judge Ladenburg to recuse himself from (the defendant’s) case is premature given the impact the Supreme Court matter will have over this case,” his motion said.
The defendant’s attorney, Jared Varo told Quinlan Friday: “We’re in a situation today where the trial court, specifically Judge Ladenburg, has simply just refused to make a ruling.”
He argued his client has been deprived of his right to speedy sentencing, and that he could be brought into court and have bail set at anytime.
“He has three children, he has to work a job, and these are things that he could lose at anytime,” Varo said.
He can’t appeal, the attorney said, because a decision hasn’t been made to appeal. And he argued the delay effectively extends the court’s probation jurisdiction over his client, because the limited probation period doesn’t start until he’s sentenced.
“The only appropriate thing to do at this point is to take this matter out of Judge Ladenburg’s hands,” Varo said.
Attorney Ann Marie Soto, who represented Ladenburg, argued the relief the defendant sought wouldn’t resolve his issue. She told Quinlan the Municipal Court judges and commissioners have been setting aside matters related to the defendant while the Supreme Court case has been pending.
Varo responded: “It is very possible that the Ladenburg v. Henke case has simply tainted the entirety of the Tacoma Municipal Court.”
It’s possible a visiting judge or a pro tem judge filling in on a temporary basis could hear the case, he noted.
Ladenburg, Henke and Christopher are the only judges on the Municipal Court bench.
A declaration Ladenburg filed with the Supreme Court said in part that the Department of Assigned Counsel seems to have a blanket policy of filing affidavits of prejudice against him, and that for his first 13 years on the bench not many were filed against him.
Those affidavits allow an attorney, without cause, to disqualify one judge from hearing a case.
“DAC’s concern is my oversight of probation,” the declaration said. “I take DV issues very seriously, and I hold offenders accountable within the bounds of the law. DAC does not like that.”
This story was originally published May 14, 2021 at 5:00 AM.
