08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

without independent review resulting in orders that contradict the Tenth Circuit’s
own precedent.
The Tenth Circuit was unable to review the respondent’s denial of
injunctive relief that would have prevented all defendants from monetary liability
because the respondent continued to assert jurisdiction over the Medical Supply I
case during the interlocutory appeal. Despite the Moot Dismissal of the Appeal
calling the respondent’s attention to the improperness of this trial court conduct
after the notice of appeal, the respondent again asserted federal trial court
jurisdiction over the petitioner’s pendant state law contract claims against US
Bank and US Bancorp during the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction over those same
claims in the petitioner’s Medical Supply Chain v. Neoforma appeal.
That appeal was ultimately dismissed over timeliness of the Notice of
Appeal, however the respondent’s open threatening of the petitioner and his
representation for any attempt to make post judgment motions or continue the case
had the foreseeable and intended effect of making it very difficult for the
petitioner to obtain counsel for the appeal, hence the delay filing the notice.
(1) Disqualification
The respondent must now disqualify himself for his conduct under Section
28 U.S.C. 455(a):
“Disqualification is mandatory for conduct that calls a judge's impartiality
into question. See 28 U.S.C. 455(a); In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d
764, 783 (3d Cir. 1992). Section 455 does not prescribe the scope of
disqualification. Rather, Congress "delegated to the judiciary the task of
33
08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5728