Moore v. Hamline University

Background

Mariama Moore brought this case representing herself against Hamline University and the other defendants named in the complaint. She alleged sex-based and race-based discrimination and other mistreatment while she was a student at Hamline University in St. Paul.

Moore filed a motion on December 7, 2023, asking that the assigned district judge be removed for alleged actual bias and prejudice. She filed an identical motion on January 8, 2024. The court understood both motions as requests for the judge’s disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455.

Legal standard

Under Section 455, a judge must be disqualified when the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The court explained that the person seeking disqualification has a substantial burden because judges are presumed to be impartial. Disqualification requires more than a party’s general claim of bias; the circumstances must show deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Moore had not shown that recusal or disqualification was warranted. Moore did not identify judicial remarks by Judge Menendez suggesting the alleged biases, or any other specific facts showing prejudice. The court concluded that Moore’s conclusory statements were insufficient.

The court also discussed several lawsuits Moore had filed in May 2023 that Judge Menendez had previously dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court stated that, even if those earlier rulings prompted Moore’s disqualification requests, judicial rulings alone almost never provide a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.

Disposition

The court denied Moore’s requests for disqualification of Judge Menendez. The order addressed only whether the judge should be removed and did not decide Moore’s underlying discrimination claims.