Laramore v. Old National Bank
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:24-cv-00857
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Laramore v. Old National Bank, Judge Wright denied Laramore’s request to remove her from the case because Laramore had not shown bias.
The ruling affected Adrianne L. Laramore and her minor child, A.Y.C., by denying Laramore’s request to disqualify Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright from the case.
What happened
In Laramore v. Old National Bank, Adrianne L. Laramore sued Old National Bank and several individuals over alleged discrimination and harassment related to banking services for her minor child, A.Y.C. Laramore represented herself.
Laramore asked to remove Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright, relying on federal laws about judicial bias. She pointed to Wright’s involvement in an earlier, unrelated case that Laramore had brought and complained that Wright had not issued a recommendation before another judge ruled in that case.
Judge Wright denied the motion. She concluded that Laramore had not shown personal bias, prejudice, or personal knowledge of disputed facts, and explained that the earlier ruling had been issued by another judge and that no recommendation was required because the motion had not been referred to Wright.
The detailed version
- Laramore v. Old National Bank · No. 0:24-cv-00857
- Patrick Schiltz
- June 3, 2024
Background
Adrianne L. Laramore brought this action individually and on behalf of her minor child, A.Y.C. The complaint concerns alleged discrimination and other harassment when Laramore attempted to use banking services on behalf of the child. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky and transferred to the District of Minnesota. Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz was assigned the case, and it was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. Laramore is representing herself.
Laramore previously filed a fair-housing action in the District of Minnesota. That earlier case was assigned to District Judge Nancy E. Brasel and referred to Judge Wright under the district’s local rules. When the defendants in that case moved for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Brasel decided the motion without a report and recommendation from Judge Wright. Judge Brasel entered judgment against Laramore, and the Eighth Circuit later ruled on Laramore’s appeal.
Motion for Recusal
Laramore moved under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 to disqualify or recuse Judge Wright. She argued that Judge Wright’s role in the earlier case, including not issuing a report and recommendation before Judge Brasel’s ruling, showed bias or prejudice. Her filing also referred to alleged personal feelings, relationships, and professional associations, but the opinion states that her supporting affidavit provided no factual support required by § 144.
Section 455 requires a judge to step aside when impartiality might reasonably be questioned and also addresses personal bias, prejudice, or personal knowledge of disputed facts. Section 144 addresses a party’s supported claim that the assigned judge has personal bias or prejudice. The court explained that judicial rulings, or the absence of a ruling, almost never establish disqualifying bias. A party seeking recusal carries a substantial burden of showing that the judge is not impartial.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Wright found nothing suggesting that she had personal bias or prejudice toward a party in this case or personal knowledge of disputed facts. The opinion says Laramore appeared to believe that Judge Wright was automatically biased because she had been assigned to the earlier case, which ended against Laramore.
The court explained that Judge Brasel—not Judge Wright—issued the ruling in the earlier case. It also explained that, under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the District of Minnesota’s local rules, a magistrate judge could not issue a report and recommendation on the earlier motion unless the assigned district judge specifically referred that motion. No such referral was made. The court further stated that the appeal in the earlier case had no bearing on Judge Wright’s impartiality.
Disposition
The court denied Laramore’s Motion for Disqualification or Recusal of a Magistrate Judge and Section 144 Bias and Prejudice of a Judge and Conflict of Interest Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)(b)(1). The order did not decide the underlying allegations against Old National Bank or the other defendants.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.