De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare

Background

Daniel De Oliveira, representing himself, filed a motion asking the court to clarify whether Judge Vernon S. Broderick was a party to an earlier motion seeking Judge Broderick’s recusal from ruling on a motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Gary Stein. De Oliveira argued that because the earlier motion named Judge Broderick and sought relief concerning him, he was a party under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1), a federal disqualification statute.

Plaintiff’s arguments

De Oliveira argued that a judge should not decide a motion concerning the judge’s own impartiality. He characterized this as a due-process problem and asked the court to send the recusal motion to an unrelated judge. He also cited state procedures that, according to the motion, prevent judges from deciding their own recusal motions.

Court’s ruling

Judge Broderick answered that he was not a party to the motion. He stated that he had already explained that motions seeking recusal are considered by the judge asked to recuse himself. He also stated that there was no structural conflict requiring reassignment of the case to another judge. The court said that procedures in other states were not relevant because federal law applied. Judge Broderick again warned De Oliveira not to file frivolous motions, including motions that reargue issues already addressed. The text does not use a separate formal “denied” or “granted” label for De Oliveira’s motion, but it rejects the requested clarification and reassignment theory.