Blackburn v. Oklahoma City VA Health Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TYEASHIA M. BLACKBURN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-22-983-G
)
UNITED STATES, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Now before the Court are Plaintiff Tyeashia M. Blackburn’s Motion for
Independent Review and Reassignment of Government Counsel (Doc. No. 66), Motion to
Disqualify (Doc. No. 71), Motion Based on Government Misconduct (Doc. No. 81), and
Motion to Remove (Doc. No. 107). Defendant United States responded to the Motion to
Disqualify (Doc. No. 83) and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. No. 88).1
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, alleges that she received negligent medical treatment at
the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center on or about November 15, 2020. See Second Am.
Compl. (Doc. No. 31). Plaintiff asserts claims for relief against the United States pursuant
to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 et al. See Second Am. Compl. at 1.
Plaintiff’s Motions request that “the Court and/or Department of Justice”
immediately “remove,” disqualify, or sanction Defendant’s counsel in this matter, “assign
the case to alternative counsel,” and refer the matter to the Office of the United States
1 As addressed by separate order, Defendant also moved to strike Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remove. See Def.’s Mot. to Strike (Doc. No. 110).
Case 5:22-cv-00983-G Document 156 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Attorney General for independent review. Pl.’s Mot. Indep. Rev. at 4; see Pl.’s Mot. to
Disqualify at 1, 4; Pl.’s Mot. Based on Gov’t Misconduct at 1, 4-7. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant’s counsel has engaged in “harassing discovery,” made “[p]ublic statements
minimizing Plaintiff’s injury,” refused to escalate Plaintiff’s settlement demand “in
accordance with DOJ procedures,” and engaged in “intentional delay tactics.” Pl.’s Mot.
Indep. Rev. at 2-3. Plaintiff cites various U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) policy
provisions, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 and 26(c), and several federal statutes
relevant to disabilities, veterans, and crime victims as support for her request. See id.
Having considered Plaintiff’s conclusory contentions, the Court declines to remove
Defendant’s counsel from this matter. Plaintiff’s Motions reflect that Plaintiff already is
seeking relief for counsel’s alleged misconduct from various entities within the DOJ and
the U.S. Attorney’s Office. See id. at 1-2; Pl.’s Mot. to Disqualify at 2.
Further, Plaintiff’s cited Rules and statutes do not prescribe the relief sought herein
as a remedy—even assuming an underlying violation of them in some manner by
Defendant’s counsel. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (authorizing the court to issue a
protective order in the context of a discovery dispute).
Most importantly, while the Court “has the inherent power to impose sanctions that
are necessary to control and supervise its own proceedings, promote judicial efficiency,
deter frivolous filings, and respond to abusive litigation practices,” neither removal of
Defendant’s counsel nor any lesser sanction is warranted here. Hutchinson v. Hahn, No.
05-CV-453, 2007 WL 2572224, at *5 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 4, 2007); see also Miller v. Legacy
Bank, No. CIV-20-946-D, 2022 WL 20620743, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 2, 2022) (“Motions
Case 5:22-cv-00983-G Document 156 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
to disqualify opposing counsel are viewed with suspicion, and the Court must guard against
the possibility that disqualification is sought to secure a tactical advantage in the
proceedings.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).2 Plaintiff’s vague, unsworn accusations
and personal belief that Defendant’s counsel is not defending this case in accordance with
DOJ policy do not plausibly establish any misconduct. And no such misconduct is
suggested by the case record, which does not reflect any improper delay, harassment, or
other improper litigation practice on the part of Defendant’s counsel.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Independent Review and
Reassignment of Government Counsel (Doc. No. 66), Motion to Disqualify Government
Counsel (Doc. No. 71), Motion Based on Government Misconduct (Doc. No. 81), and
Motion to Remove (Doc. No. 107) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2026.
2 Two sources of authority govern motions to disqualify. Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Schs., 43
F.3d 1373, 1383 (10th Cir. 1994). First, district courts consider “the local rules of the court
in which [the attorneys] appear.” Id. This Court has adopted the Oklahoma Rules of
Professional Conduct as its governing standard of attorney conduct. See LCvR 83.6(b);
see also Okla. Stat. tit. 5, ch. 1, app. 3-A. Second, motions to disqualify are “decided by
applying standards developed under federal law” and are therefore governed “by the ethical
rules announced by the national profession and considered in light of the public interest
and the litigants’ rights.” Cole, 43 F.3d at 1383 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 5:22-cv-00983-G Document 156 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 3