Markham v. Tolbert
- Susan Nelson
- 0:22-cv-00187
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Markham v. Tolbert, Judge Nelson denied Markham’s motions challenging jurisdiction and seeking disqualification, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Oji Konata Markham, whose two motions were denied and whose appeal of this order was certified as not being taken in good faith.
What happened
In Markham v. Tolbert, Oji Konata Markham asked the court to challenge its jurisdiction and to disqualify the judge. The court treated the jurisdiction motion as a request to undo an earlier summary-judgment order.
The court found no basis for the requested relief under Rule 60, which allows a court to provide extraordinary relief from a judgment or order. It also found that Markham had not shown that a reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality; disagreements with the court’s analysis and requests to consider additional evidence were not enough.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied both motions. The court also certified that an appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Markham v. Tolbert · No. 0:22-cv-00187
- Susan Nelson
- Apr. 2, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Oji Konata Markham filed a motion to challenge jurisdiction and a motion to disqualify the judge. The order addresses only those two motions and refers to an earlier order granting summary judgment.
Jurisdiction Motion
The court construed Markham’s motion to challenge jurisdiction as a request for relief from the earlier summary-judgment order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Rule 60 provides limited relief from a judgment or order in extraordinary circumstances. After reviewing the matter, the court found no basis to grant relief and denied the motion.
Motion to Disqualify the Judge
The court treated Markham’s motion to disqualify the judge as a request for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144. Recusal means that a judge steps aside because impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court stated that the party seeking recusal carries a heavy burden and that an unfavorable ruling, without a clear showing of bias or partiality, is not enough.
The court found that Markham had not met that burden. It said he objected to the court’s description of the facts and its application of the law, and that his supporting affidavit asked the court to consider additional evidence concerning his claim that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court concluded that these circumstances did not establish a basis for disqualification and denied the motion.
Disposition
The court denied Markham’s Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction and denied his Motion to Disqualify Judge. It also certified that an appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.