Moore v. Hamline University
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-03723
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Moore v. Hamline University, Judge Menendez denied Moore’s request to disqualify her, finding the added memorandum did not justify changing the earlier denial.
Mariama Moore’s request to disqualify Judge Katherine Menendez was denied, so the earlier ruling remained in place and the case continued before that judge.
What happened
In Moore v. Hamline University, Mariama Moore asked the federal judge assigned to her case to step aside because of alleged bias and prejudice. The court had already denied her request before she filed a supporting memorandum.
The court said Minnesota’s judicial-removal rules apply only in Minnesota state courts, not federal court. It also ruled that the difference between a judge’s and a litigant’s race, sex, nationality, or gender identity alone does not justify removing the judge.
Judge Katherine Menendez denied Moore’s request to change the earlier ruling, concluding that the memorandum provided no basis for disqualification. This order did not decide the underlying discrimination claims.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Hamline University · No. 0:23-cv-03723
- Katherine Menendez
- Jan. 25, 2024
Background
On January 10, 2024, the court denied Mariama Moore’s motions seeking disqualification of Judge Katherine Menendez based on alleged bias and prejudice. Moore later filed a memorandum explaining her grounds for the request more fully. The court considered that memorandum and addressed whether it changed the earlier decision.
Legal analysis
Moore cited Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 63.01, 63.02, and 63.03. The court explained that those rules govern proceedings in Minnesota state courts and do not apply in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The court stated that a request for judicial disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455 may initially be decided by the judge whose impartiality is questioned. The court said the same approach could apply if Moore’s filings were treated as invoking 28 U.S.C. § 144, which concerns an affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice.
Moore’s memorandum added that she is a Black African woman and that the judge is of White European descent. The court held that a difference between a judge’s and a litigant’s race, sex, nationality, or gender identity is, by itself, insufficient grounds for disqualification.
Ruling
Judge Menendez concluded that Moore’s memorandum provided no basis to change the court’s earlier ruling on disqualification. The court therefore denied the request to alter that ruling. The opinion addressed judicial disqualification and did not decide the underlying discrimination claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.