Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CARLOS MATURIN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civ. No. 24-1125 JCH/SCY
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Rule 72(a)
Objections and Motion to Set Aside Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 55) with Supplemental Motion
to Vacate under Rule 60(b)(4) due to Legal Voidness and Systemic Prejudice (Dkt. No. 65)
(“Objections”); (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order of Reference (Doc. 68) (Dkt. No. 72)
(“Motion to Vacate”); and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment with Reaffirmation of
Systemic Due Process Deprivations, Structural Judicial Partiality, Constitutional Bias, and
Institutional Breach of Judicial Integrity in Direct Contravention of Supreme Court Precedent,
Federal Law, Local Rules, and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (Dkt. No. 78)
(“Motion for Default Judgment”). The Court, having considered the objections and motions, the
briefs, and the law, concludes that Plaintiff’s Objections should be overruled and the requests for
relief requested therein should be denied. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate and Motion
for Default Judgment will be denied.
I. 	Plaintiff’s Objections
Case 1:24-cv-01125-JCH-SCY Document 104 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On July 9, 2025, the Honorable Steven C. Yarbrough entered an Order Granting in Part
and Denying in Part Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 55). Nineteen days later, on July 28, 2025,
Plaintiff filed Rule 72(a) objections to the Order. Pl.’s Obj., Dkt. No. 65. Rule 72(a) allows a party
to file objections to a non-dispositive order “within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(a). Plaintiff’s objections are untimely and will be overruled. Alternatively, the
objections are without merit and should be overruled. Finally, Plaintiff’s request to set aside or
vacate Judge Yarbrough’s Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) is likewise
without merit, as are the other requests set forth in the Objections. Consequently, all the requests
for relief made in Plaintiff’s Objections will be denied.
II. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate this Court’s Order of Reference. Plaintiff argues judicial
and “structural bias,” as well as violations of due process and equal protection. Pl.’s Mot. to Vacate
1-4, Dkt. No. 72. This Court entered the Order of Reference under its authority in 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Plaintiff, as the moving party, has a substantial burden to establish that the judge is not
impartial. United States v. Burger, 964 F.2d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 1992); Hinman v. Rogers, 831
F.2d 937, 939 (10th Cir. 1987). A judge has a duty to disqualify herself in any proceeding where
her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge, however, has an
obligation not to recuse when there is no cause for him to do so. See Hinman, 831 F.2d at 939.
Plaintiff has not shown that the magistrate judge is biased against him personally or as a pro se
litigant. Nor has he established that Judge Yarbrough’s impartiality might reasonably be
questioned. The record shows no violations of due process or equal protection. There are no valid
grounds for vacating the Court’s Order of Reference.
Case 1:24-cv-01125-JCH-SCY Document 104 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Additionally, Plaintiff requests the Court “Vacate Docs. 52, 55, and 71”; “Restore the
controlling procedural regime of Doc. 25”; “Reassign all dispositive matters back to Judge
Herrera”; and “Initiate internal review under Rule 11(c)(1)(D) of the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Rules.” Pl.’s Mot. to Vacate 20, Dkt. No. 72. These requests are without merit factually
and legally and are frivolous. Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate therefore will be denied in its entirety.
III. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
Plaintiff rehashes many of the same arguments from his Motion to Vacate in his Motion
for Default Judgment: judicial and systemic bias, asymmetrical rulings, and violation of due
process and equal protection. See Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. 1-13, Dkt. No. 78; Pl.’s Reply 9, Dkt.
No. 80. He also argues that Judge Yarbrough violated numerous canons in the Guide to Judiciary
Policy. See Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. 4-12, Dkt. No. 78. Plaintiff requests default judgment and an
award of $3,960,870. See id. at 5-6, 12-13. Again, Plaintiff has not shown bias by Judge
Yarbrough, that his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or any violation of the ethics
rules. Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is entirely without merit, is frivolous, and will be
denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Rule 72(a) Objections and Motion to Set Aside Magistrate Judge’s Order
(Doc. 55) with Supplemental Motion to Vacate under Rule 60(b)(4) due to Legal
Voidness and Systemic Prejudice (Dkt. No. 65) are OVERRULED and the requests
for relief contained therein are DENIED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Order of Reference (Doc. 68) (Dkt. No. 72) is DENIED.
3. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment with Reaffirmation of Systemic Due Process
Deprivations, Structural Judicial Partiality, Constitutional Bias, and Institutional
Breach of Judicial Integrity in Direct Contravention of Supreme Court Precedent,
Case 1:24-cv-01125-JCH-SCY Document 104 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Federal Law, Local Rules, and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (Dkt.
No. 78) is DENIED.
_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01125-JCH-SCY Document 104 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 4