Enrico Taylor v. Nike, Inc., et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

ENRICO TAYLOR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) No. 4:26-cv-00681-SEP NIKE, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Enrico Taylor’s Motion for Recusal of the undersigned. Doc. [7]. Plaintiff believes that an appearance of bias exists in the present matter because the undersigned was appointed by President Donald J. Trump, against whom Plaintiff has a personal bias. See Doc. [7] at 1-2. Section 455(a) provides that a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Impartiality is judged objectively: “Would the average person, knowing the facts alleged by the part[y] seeking disqualification, question the Judge’s impartiality, and, if so, would that question be reasonable?” O’Bannon v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 169 F.3d 1088, 1091 (8th Cir. 1999). Stated differently, the test 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.” Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 648 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Kan. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 85 F.3d 1353, 1358 (8th Cir. 1996)). If this test is not satisfied, judges have a duty to decide the cases and controversies that come before them. See Perkins v. Spivey, 911 F.2d 22, 28 (8th Cir. 1990). “Frivolous and improperly based suggestions that a judge recuse should be firmly declined.” Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff’s reasons for recusal are frivolous and conclusory. Plaintiff cannot argue recusal is necessary when there are no facts establishing a disqualifying circumstance. Plaintiff’s argument that I am biased or prejudiced against him because I was appointed by President Trump is an insufficient basis for disqualification. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Motion establishes a clear showing of bias or partiality, and as a result, I am obligated to preside over the present matter. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Recusal, Doc. [7], is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 1st day of July, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE