De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare

Background

Daniel De Oliveira, a plaintiff representing himself in five related cases, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for certification of an interlocutory appeal. That procedure can allow an immediate appeal from an order that ordinarily cannot yet be appealed. The requested appeal concerned Judge Broderick’s May 30, 2025 Opinion and Order.

In that earlier order, Judge Broderick denied De Oliveira’s requests to vacate Magistrate Judge Gary Stein’s denial of De Oliveira’s motion to recuse Judge Stein, to recuse Judge Broderick from deciding the motion concerning Judge Stein, and to reconsider the motion concerning Judge Stein.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the party seeking certification must establish three requirements: a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and that an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation. Even when those requirements are met, the district court has discretion to deny certification.

The court found that De Oliveira had not shown substantial grounds for disagreement about the legal questions he identified: whether a magistrate judge may decide non-final matters without the parties’ consent, whether a district judge’s decision on a motion to recuse a magistrate judge creates a structural conflict, and whether a district judge may decide a motion seeking that judge’s own recusal. The court also concluded that an immediate appeal would not advance the litigation because the recusal order was non-final, did not concern the merits of the case, and would instead prolong the proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Broderick denied De Oliveira’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Document 270. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the related cases.