Wesley v. Kinley ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION KAIVEN LEMAR WESLEY PLAINTIFF v. 1:22-cv-1026-SOH-BAB TIFFANY KINLEY, et al DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff, Kaiven Lemar Weley, filed a Motion to Recuse (ECF No. 56) whereby he questions the Court’s impartiality. Plaintiff disagrees with decisions the Court has made in his cause of action and as a result claims the Court is biased against him. A judge is required to "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. 455(a). Congress amended this law “to clarify and broaden the grounds for judicial disqualification and to conform with the recently adopted [American Bar Association] Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C (1987).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 858 n.7 (1988). “The question is whether the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the average person on the street who knows all the relevant facts of a case.” United States v. Dehghani, 550 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations 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.” Pope v. Fed. Express Corp., 974 F.2d 982, 985 (8th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff brings no proof whatsoever to merit recusal in this case. Plaintiff’s Motion reveals he seeks recusal because of adverse rulings. Adverse rulings by a court are not a basis 1 for recusal. Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir. 1998). The undersignedtook an oath to administer justice without respect to persons, giving equal right to the poor and to the rich, and swore to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties of United States Magistrate Judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. This Court will faithfully and impartially make decisions based on the law and facts. If Plaintiff believes this Court’s decisions were incorrect, his remedy is appealing to the presiding District Judge or the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, not filing a recusal motion. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF. No. 56) is DENIED. DATED this 12th day of April. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2