Wesley v. Kinley et al

1
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
Case 1:22-cv-01026-SOH Document 100 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-01026-SOH Document 100 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>