De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare

Background

Daniel De Oliveira, proceeding without a lawyer, filed several related cases captioned against Tenet Healthcare and others, including a member case against JAMS. He asked Magistrate Judge Gary Stein to recuse himself because Judge Stein had granted extension requests and stayed the cases while defendants responded to the complaints. Judge Stein denied that request on May 19, 2025.

De Oliveira then filed the motion addressed in this opinion. The motion sought to vacate Judge Stein’s denial, asked Judge Broderick to recuse himself from deciding the challenge to Judge Stein, and sought reconsideration of Judge Stein’s ruling. Because the motion’s intended recipient was unclear, Judge Broderick treated the requests to vacate and reconsider as objections to Judge Stein’s order.

Legal standard and analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must recuse himself when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The court explained that recusal motions are decided by the judge whose recusal is requested. It therefore rejected De Oliveira’s argument that Judge Stein could not decide the request to remove him.

The court also found that Judge Stein did not abuse his discretion. Judge Broderick agreed that extensions and stays were non-dispositive matters—matters that do not decide the parties’ underlying claims—and that a magistrate judge may handle such matters without the parties’ consent. The court found Judge Stein’s order thorough and well reasoned. It further stated that De Oliveira had not shown a legitimate reason for Judge Broderick’s recusal. Referring a case to a magistrate judge for general pretrial matters, the court held, was not a basis for disqualification.

The court noted that De Oliveira’s reconsideration request repeated his prior argument about consent to Judge Stein’s jurisdiction. It stated that he had not shown that Judge Stein’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court also warned that continued unsupported filings could result in sanctions, including revocation of electronic-filing privileges or dismissal of the lawsuits.

Disposition

The court denied De Oliveira’s motion for reconsideration, Document 220. The Clerk was directed to terminate Documents 205, 207, 220, and 221, described respectively as the motion for an expedited ruling, the supplemental motion for Judge Stein’s recusal, the motion to vacate the denial of the recusal motion, and the motion for clarification concerning a judge’s authority to rule on the judge’s own recusal. The opinion did not decide the merits of De Oliveira’s underlying claims against the defendants.