Glover v. Wells Fargo Bank
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-01459
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Glover v. Wells Fargo Bank, Judge Menendez denied Glover’s request to disqualify her based on prior adverse rulings.
Wilbert Glover’s request to disqualify Judge Katherine Menendez was denied, and the case continued on the claims that had not been dismissed.
What happened
In Glover v. Wells Fargo Bank, Wilbert Glover, representing himself, asked Judge Katherine Menendez to step aside from his case. He argued that her earlier rulings against him showed prejudice and bias.
Glover pointed to three earlier decisions: a recommendation for judgment against him in a police-investigation case, the dismissal of an earlier Wells Fargo lawsuit, and a partial dismissal in this case. The court explained that unfavorable rulings alone generally do not show that a judge cannot be fair.
Judge Menendez ruled that Glover had not shown the kind of deep favoritism or hostility required for disqualification. She denied his request under the federal law governing judicial disqualification.
The detailed version
- Glover v. Wells Fargo Bank · No. 0:22-cv-01459
- Katherine Menendez
- Mar. 30, 2023
Background
Wilbert Glover brought this case against Wells Fargo Bank and several individuals. The opinion states that he proceeded without a lawyer. The case had already continued on some claims after the court granted the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.
Glover filed a document titled “Objection” on March 14, 2023. He asked Judge Menendez to disqualify herself under 28 U.S.C. § 455, which requires a judge to step aside when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Glover’s Grounds for Disqualification
Glover relied on three earlier rulings by Judge Menendez. In a prior related proceeding, docket number 18-cv-223 in the District of Minnesota, Judge Menendez, while serving as a magistrate judge, recommended granting summary judgment to a city and several police officers in Glover’s lawsuit concerning a kidnapping investigation. The recommendation was later adopted by another judge.
Glover also pointed to the dismissal of an earlier Wells Fargo lawsuit, docket number 22-cv-928 in the District of Minnesota. The court had dismissed that case because the original complaint and supplemental pleading did not adequately state a claim for relief. Five days later, Glover filed this case with more detailed factual allegations. He also cited the court’s earlier partial dismissal in the present case.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the party seeking disqualification bears a substantial burden and that judges are presumed to be impartial. Judicial rulings alone almost never establish the bias or partiality required for disqualification. The court stated that disqualification requires a showing of deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.
The court found that Glover identified only prior adverse decisions. It also found that he did not identify judicial remarks suggesting favoritism toward the opposing side’s counsel or any other specific bias or prejudice.
Ruling
Judge Menendez concluded that Glover had not shown that recusal or disqualification was warranted. The court DENIED Glover’s request for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455. This order addressed the judge’s disqualification request; it did not resolve the remaining claims in the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.