Laramore v. Old National Bank et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 20 Motion to Disqualify Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright on 6/3/2024. (SK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Adrianne L. Laramore, individually and
on behalf of her minor child, A.Y.C.,

Case No. 24-cv-0857 (PJS/ECW)

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Old National Bank; Kristi (last name
unknown) Regional Manager; George
Bittar, Branch Manager; Patti (last name
unknown) Legal Department; and Katie
Eastman, Accounts Representatives, in
their individual and official capacity,
Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’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)(l). (Dkt. 20.) For the reasons set
forth below, the Motion is denied.
I.
A.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Present Action
This case was initiated by Plaintiff Adrianne L. Laramore, individually and on

behalf of Minor Child, A.Y.C., on March 8, 2024, by filing the operative Complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Laramore v. Old
National Bank, et al., Civil Action No. 5: 23-217-DCR. (Dkt. 1.) The action relates to
alleged discrimination and other harassment suffered by Plaintiff when she attempted to

engage in banking services on behalf of her minor child. (Dkt. 1.) On March 11, 2024,
Chief United States District Judge Danny C. Reeves, of the Eastern District of Kentucky,
transferred the case to the District of Minnesota. (Dkts. 6-7.) The present case has been
assigned to Chief United States District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz and referred to the
undersigned.
On March 26, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis in this case. (Dkt. 8.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter.
Service has been waived by Defendants and their responses or answers are
presently due on June 4, 2024. (Dkts. 12-16.)
Plaintiff filed the present Motion and accompanying Affidavit on May 16, 2024.
(Dkts. 20-21.)
B.

Relevant Previous Action Involving Plaintiff and this Court
On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a fair housing Complaint in this District in

the matter of Adrianne L. Laramore v. Quality Residence, LLC et al., 22-cv-02370
(NEB/ECW) (“Quality Residence Litigation”). The case was assigned to United States
District Judge Nancy E. Brasel and referred to the undersigned consistent with Local
Rule 72.1(a), which sets forth a general designation of magistrate judge duties in this
District. See D. Minn. LR. 72.1(a). On November 13, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings in the Quality Residence Litigation. (Dkt. 30.) Judge
Brasel did not refer that Motion to the undersigned, and Judge Brasel granted the Motion
on the papers on February 29, 2024. (Dkt. 47.) Judgment issued against Plaintiff in the
Quality Residence Litigation on February 29, 2024. (Dkt. 48.)
2

Plaintiff appealed Judge Brasel’s decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,
and on May 10, 2024, the Eighth Circuit summarily affirmed Judge Brasel’s decision.
(Dkt. 60.)
II.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks recusal of the undersigned in this matter in the present Motion.
(Dkt. 20). The basis of Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and
28 U.S.C. § 144 is as follows:
Honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright failed to provide
Plaintiff, Adrianne L. Laramore, with a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 72, before Honorable U.S. Judge Brasel rendered her
judgment on case file #22-cv-02370. Plaintiff is explaining the biasness [sic]
and prejudicial process put upon her Federal Case involving Magistrate
Judge Wright.
***
[W]herefore [sic], in light of the foregoing proceedings plaintiff herein
submits to this court a request for the U.S. Magistrate Judge to Disqualify
and Recuse herself from this matter and allow for a Judge with no personal
feelings or emotions or attachments through family, friends, and professional
association(s) during active cases on Appeal to review and preside over all
hearings on this matter.
(Dkt. 20 at 4.) 1
In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 455 requires as follows:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall
disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

Plaintiff’s supporting Affidavit provides no factual support for her Motion as
required by § 144. (See Dkt. 21.)
1

3

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding[.]
28 U.S.C. § 455. Plaintiff also appears, based on the caption of her Motion, to be seeking
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 144. Section 144 states as follows:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a
timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is
pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any
adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge
shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or
prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning
of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be
shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such
affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of
record stating that it is made in good faith.
28 U.S.C. § 144.
“[R]equests for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 may be determined, in the first
instance, by the judge whose impartiality has been questioned. . . [and] [t]he same
approach is permitted even if the Court were to view [Plaintiff’s] filings through the lens
of 28 U.S.C. § 144.” Moore v. Hamline Univ., No. 23-CV-3723 (KMM/TNL), 2024 WL
279099, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2024) (citing Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084, 1086 (8th
Cir. 2017) (noting that regardless of whether a request is made under 28 U.S.C. § 455 or
through an affidavit of prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 144, “[o]ur court as well as others
have routinely affirmed recusal decisions rendered by the judge against whom the motion
is directed.”)); see also United States v. Hogeland, Case No. 10-cr-0061 (PJS/AJB), 2012
WL 4868904, at *8 n.9 (D. Minn. Oct. 15, 2012) (“There is no requirement that a
[section] 455 motion to disqualify be heard by a different judge than the one whose
4

disqualification it seeks. Indeed, such motions are almost always decided by the judge
whose recusal is sought.”).
The Court should recuse if it is shown that the Court has a personal bias or
prejudice arising from an extrajudicial source. See Rossbach v. United States, 878 F.2d
1088, 1089 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Jones, 801 F.2d 304, 312 (8th Cir.
1986)); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994) (extrajudicial source is
not the only basis for establishing disqualifying bias or prejudice but is the most common
basis). Judicial rulings alone, or the lack thereof as Plaintiff relies on here, almost never
constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion for disqualification. See Liteky, 510
U.S. at 555. Further, “[t]he test for recusal is ‘whether the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned by the average person on the street who knows all of the
relevant facts of a case.” United States v. Aldridge, 561 F.3d 759, 764 (8th Cir. 2009)
(marks and citation omitted). “A party introducing a motion to recuse carries a heavy
burden of proof; a judge is presumed to be impartial and the party seeking
disqualification bears the substantial burden of proving otherwise.” Johnson v. Steele,
999 F.3d 584, 587 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Delorme, 964 F.3d 678, 681
(8th Cir. 2020)).
Here, there is nothing to suggest that the undersigned “has personal bias or
prejudice concerning” any named party to this lawsuit or is privy to “personal knowledge
of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455. As best as
this Court can discern, Plaintiff is concerned that because the undersigned was assigned
to an unrelated case which was dismissed, this Court is automatically biased. However,
5

judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.
Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Complicating matters further for Plaintiff’s Motion is that it was
not the undersigned that dismissed her action in the Quality Residence Litigation. It was
Judge Brasel who issued that Order. Plaintiff takes issue with the fact that this Court did
not issue a Report and Recommendation in that case. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C §
636 and Local Rule 72.1, which provide the legal authority for United States Magistrate
Judges in this District, 2 the undersigned Magistrate Judge cannot issue a Report and
Recommendation on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a civil case unless the
motion was specifically referred to the undersigned by the Article III Judge assigned on
the case. See 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.1(a), (b). There was no such
referral from Judge Brasel to this Court for the motion for judgment on the pleadings in
the Quality Residence Litigation. See Adams v. City of St. Paul, No. 22-CV-1902
(ECT/LIB), 2023 WL 3195255, at *1 (D. Minn. May 2, 2023) (“Whether a litigant
consents or not, the law gives magistrate judges the power to decide non-dispositive
pretrial matters and to recommend disposition of dispositive matters in cases where a
district judge designates the magistrate judge to do so.”).
Moreover, a pending appeal in the Quality Residence Litigation has no bearing on
this Court’s impartiality. While it has no relevance to the present Motion, the Court notes
that the Eighth Circuit recently summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal in the Quality

Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as Local Rule 72.2),
relied upon by Plaintiff, merely provides recourse to a party who wishes to appeal or
object to an order or report and recommendation.
2

6

Residence Litigation. (See Quality Residence Litigation, Case No. 22-cv-02370
(NEB/ECW), Dkt. 60 (May 13, 2024).)
In sum, Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing of bias, prejudice, or any
personal knowledge by the undersigned of the underlying facts of the present case
dealing with a bank. There is simply no evidence that the undersigned will not be
impartial in the present action. For all of these reasons, the Motion is denied.
III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff’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)(l) (Dkt. 20) is DENIED.

Dated: June 3, 2024

s/Elizabeth Cowan Wright
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT
United States Magistrate Judge

7