UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Mariama Moore,                             No. 23-cv-3723 (KMM/TNL)       

          Plaintiff,                                                 

v.                                            ORDER                       

Hamline University, et al.,                                               

          Defendants.                                                


The  Plaintiff,  Mariama  Moore,  brought  this  case  pro  se  against  Defendants 
Hamline University, Dean of Students, Hamline University Residential Life, Dean of 
Student Employees, Syndey De Lambo, Dean Patti Kensten, Vice President Carlos Seed, 
David Everett, and Director of Residential Life Yolanda Hansen, alleging that she has 
been  subjected  to  sex-based  and  race-based  discrimination  and  other  forms  of 
mistreatment while a student at Hamline University in St. Paul. [See generally Compl., 
Dkt. 1.] On December 7, 2023, Ms. Moore filed a “Motion to Remove New Random 
Selected Judge(s) in Her New Open Case,” in which she requested that the undersigned 
District Judge be removed “for actual bias and prejudice.” [Dkt. 5.] Further, Ms. Moore 
indicates the basis of her motion is “sex-gender discrimination” and she asks that if her 
“case is dismissed without prejudice [she] would like to appeal the case in district court.” 
[Id.] On January 8, 2024, Ms. Moore filed an identical motion. [Dkt. 16.] 
The  Court  construes  Ms.  Moore’s  motions  as  seeking  disqualification  of  the 
undersigned pursuant to 

 on grounds of prejudice and bias. Under § 455 a 
judge  shall  be  disqualified  “in  any  proceeding  in  which  [her]  impartiality  might 
reasonably  be  questioned.”  

(a).  “[D]isqualification  is  required  if  a 
reasonable person who knew the circumstances would question the judge’s impartiality, 

even though no actual bias or prejudice has been shown.” United States v. Wisecarver, 

  (8th  Cir.  2011)  (citations  omitted).  “[T]he  party  seeking 
disqualification bears the substantial burden” of overcoming the presumption that a judge 
is impartial. United States v. Dehghani, 

 (8th Cir. 2008). District judges 
should  not  disqualify  themselves  unnecessarily  and  are  given  discretion  to  resolve 

motions for their disqualification. United States v. Walker, 

 (8th Cir. 
1990); Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CV 19-1590 (JRT/SER), 

, 
at *2 & n.3 (D. Minn. Oct. 4, 2019) (noting that whether disqualification is required is 
decided  in  the  first  instance  by  the  judicial  officer  whose  impartiality  has  been 
questioned).                                                              

The  Court  finds  that  Ms. Moore  has  not  demonstrated  that  recusal  or 
disqualification is warranted. “For recusal to be required, there must be ‘a deep-seated 
favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.’” Powell, 

, at *2 & n.4 (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555). There has been no such showing 
in this case. Indeed, Ms. Moore does not point to any judicial remarks by the undersigned 

that imply the biases she suggests the Court bears toward her, nor any other biases or 
prejudices that call into question the Court’s impartiality in this matter. The motion is 
limited to conclusory statements of bias, which is generally insufficient. See Devisme v. 
City of Duluth, No. 21-CV-1195 (WMW/LIB), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 
18, 2022) (“Devisme’s motions provide no evidence or specific factual allegations that 
could reasonably demonstrate bias or prejudice.”), aff’d, No. 22-1572, 

 
(8th Cir. Oct. 12, 2022).                                                 

Though she does not reference any specific reason for bringing these motions for 
disqualification,  presumably  Ms. Moore  seeks  such  relief  because  the  Court  has 
previously dismissed several lawsuits she filed in May 2023 without prejudice for failure 
to state a claim pursuant to 

(e)(2)(B). Moore v. Weaver, No. 23-cv-1254 
(KMM/LIB); Moore v. Coach, No. 23-cv-1255 (KMM/LIB); Moore v. Children’s Minn. 

Human  Res.,  No.  23-cv-1256  (KMM/LIB);  Moore  v.  Target  Corp.,  No.  23-cv-1257 
(KMM/LIB); Moore v. Hellmuth & Johnson, No. 23-cv-1258 (KMM/LIB). However, 
even if this is the reason that Ms. Moore seeks disqualification, “judicial rulings alone 
almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United 
States, 

 (1994).                                         

For these reasons, Ms. Moore’s requests for disqualification of the undersigned are 
DENIED.                                                                   
Date: January 9, 2024            s/Katherine Menendez                     
                            Katherine Menendez                       
                            United States District Judge             

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

Mariama Moore,                             No. 23-cv-3723 (KMM/TNL)       

          Plaintiff,                                                 

v.                                            ORDER                       

Hamline University, et al.,                                               

          Defendants.                                                


The  Plaintiff,  Mariama  Moore,  brought  this  case  pro  se  against  Defendants 
Hamline University, Dean of Students, Hamline University Residential Life, Dean of 
Student Employees, Syndey De Lambo, Dean Patti Kensten, Vice President Carlos Seed, 
David Everett, and Director of Residential Life Yolanda Hansen, alleging that she has 
been  subjected  to  sex-based  and  race-based  discrimination  and  other  forms  of 
mistreatment while a student at Hamline University in St. Paul. [See generally Compl., 
Dkt. 1.] On December 7, 2023, Ms. Moore filed a “Motion to Remove New Random 
Selected Judge(s) in Her New Open Case,” in which she requested that the undersigned 
District Judge be removed “for actual bias and prejudice.” [Dkt. 5.] Further, Ms. Moore 
indicates the basis of her motion is “sex-gender discrimination” and she asks that if her 
“case is dismissed without prejudice [she] would like to appeal the case in district court.” 
[Id.] On January 8, 2024, Ms. Moore filed an identical motion. [Dkt. 16.] 
The  Court  construes  Ms.  Moore’s  motions  as  seeking  disqualification  of  the 
undersigned pursuant to 

 on grounds of prejudice and bias. Under § 455 a 
judge  shall  be  disqualified  “in  any  proceeding  in  which  [her]  impartiality  might 
reasonably  be  questioned.”  

(a).  “[D]isqualification  is  required  if  a 
reasonable person who knew the circumstances would question the judge’s impartiality, 

even though no actual bias or prejudice has been shown.” United States v. Wisecarver, 

  (8th  Cir.  2011)  (citations  omitted).  “[T]he  party  seeking 
disqualification bears the substantial burden” of overcoming the presumption that a judge 
is impartial. United States v. Dehghani, 

 (8th Cir. 2008). District judges 
should  not  disqualify  themselves  unnecessarily  and  are  given  discretion  to  resolve 

motions for their disqualification. United States v. Walker, 

 (8th Cir. 
1990); Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CV 19-1590 (JRT/SER), 

, 
at *2 & n.3 (D. Minn. Oct. 4, 2019) (noting that whether disqualification is required is 
decided  in  the  first  instance  by  the  judicial  officer  whose  impartiality  has  been 
questioned).                                                              

The  Court  finds  that  Ms. Moore  has  not  demonstrated  that  recusal  or 
disqualification is warranted. “For recusal to be required, there must be ‘a deep-seated 
favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.’” Powell, 

, at *2 & n.4 (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555). There has been no such showing 
in this case. Indeed, Ms. Moore does not point to any judicial remarks by the undersigned 

that imply the biases she suggests the Court bears toward her, nor any other biases or 
prejudices that call into question the Court’s impartiality in this matter. The motion is 
limited to conclusory statements of bias, which is generally insufficient. See Devisme v. 
City of Duluth, No. 21-CV-1195 (WMW/LIB), 

, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 
18, 2022) (“Devisme’s motions provide no evidence or specific factual allegations that 
could reasonably demonstrate bias or prejudice.”), aff’d, No. 22-1572, 

 
(8th Cir. Oct. 12, 2022).                                                 

Though she does not reference any specific reason for bringing these motions for 
disqualification,  presumably  Ms. Moore  seeks  such  relief  because  the  Court  has 
previously dismissed several lawsuits she filed in May 2023 without prejudice for failure 
to state a claim pursuant to 

(e)(2)(B). Moore v. Weaver, No. 23-cv-1254 
(KMM/LIB); Moore v. Coach, No. 23-cv-1255 (KMM/LIB); Moore v. Children’s Minn. 

Human  Res.,  No.  23-cv-1256  (KMM/LIB);  Moore  v.  Target  Corp.,  No.  23-cv-1257 
(KMM/LIB); Moore v. Hellmuth & Johnson, No. 23-cv-1258 (KMM/LIB). However, 
even if this is the reason that Ms. Moore seeks disqualification, “judicial rulings alone 
almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United 
States, 

 (1994).                                         

For these reasons, Ms. Moore’s requests for disqualification of the undersigned are 
DENIED.                                                                   
Date: January 9, 2024            s/Katherine Menendez                     
                            Katherine Menendez                       
                            United States District Judge