Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15548/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15548-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15548

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-24624-CMA

JOSE YEYILLE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MIAMI DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

LISA ROBERTSON, 

in her individual and official capacity, 

as Principal of John A. Ferguson Senior High School, 

ARMANDINA ACOSTA-LEON, 

in her individual and official capacity, 

as Assistant Principal of John A. Ferguson Senior High School, 

ASUNCION VALDES,

in her individual and official capacity, 

as Payroll and Substitute Teacher Locator of John A. Ferguson Senior High 

School, 

EGNA RIVAS, 

in her individual and official capacity, 

as Attendance Office Secretary of John A. Ferguson Senior High School, et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

USCA11 Case: 15-15548 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 1 of 5
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 31, 2016)

Before WILSON, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Jose Yeyille, a lawyer proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial 

of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion. After District Judge 

Altonaga dismissed Yeyille’s third amended complaint and while Yeyille’s appeal 

of that dismissal was pending in this Court,

1 Yeyille sought Judge Altonaga’s 

retroactive recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Yeyille claimed that recusal was 

warranted because Judge Altonaga had apparent conflicts with respect to his case, 

which “render[ed] the adversarial legal system[] a farce.” Judge Altonaga denied 

Yeyille’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion, and Yeyille appealed. After careful consideration, 

we affirm.2

 1 We affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the suit on February 22, 2016, Yeyille v. 

Miami Dade Cty. Pub. Sch., No. 15-13053, 2016 WL 692050 (11th Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) (per 

curiam) (unpublished), and Yeyille’s petition for rehearing was denied on April 20, 2016.

2 On appeal, Yeyille also moved to supplement the record with a school board

memorandum and meeting minutes. We may allow a party to supplement the record on appeal if 

this would “aid [in] making an informed decision.” Schwartz v. Millon Air, Inc., 341 F.3d 1220, 

1225 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003). Neither of these documents would aid in making our decision. The 

memorandum is a slightly revised version of one Yeyille included in his Rule 60(b)(6) motion, 

and none of the revisions are relevant to Yeyille’s recusal claim. The meeting minutes show that 

the law firm of Holland & Knight, LLP was ultimately retained by the school board, but this fact 

USCA11 Case: 15-15548 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 2 of 5
3

We review a district judge’s decision not to recuse herself for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004) (per 

curiam). A district judge must recuse herself “in any proceeding in which [her] 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “The test is 

whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts 

underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant 

doubt about the judge’s impartiality.” Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 

1524 (11th Cir. 1988). “A judge should not recuse [her]self based upon 

unsupported, irrational, or tenuous allegations.” Giles v. Garwood, 853 F.2d 876, 

878 (11th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

Yeyille argues that Judge Altonaga should have recused herself for two

reasons: (1) Judge Altonaga was a member of the steering committee for a 2014 

“Bench and Bar Conference” in Miami, as was opposing counsel in this case 

(along with forty other people); and (2) Judge Altonaga’s husband is a partner at 

Holland & Knight, which was hired by the defendant school board to work on an 

unrelated matter several months after Judge Altonaga dismissed Yeyille’s case.3

 

 

does not aid in considering Yeyille’s recusal claim. We deny Yeyille’s motion to supplement the 

record on appeal. 3 Yeyille appears to make several additional arguments that are not relevant to his recusal 

motion: First, Yeyille claims that Judge Altonaga erred by refusing to exercise jurisdiction over 

his motion. Yeyille has this wrong. Judge Altonaga exercised jurisdiction in order to consider 

his motion and never mentioned lacking jurisdiction over it. Second, Yeyille claims that the 

Dominican Republic hired Holland & Knight to appeal an order by Judge Altonaga in an 

USCA11 Case: 15-15548 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 3 of 5
4

As to the first reason, Yeyille says that Judge Altonaga’s “membership in the 

Steering Committee predisposed [her] to rule in favor of [opposing counsel],” 

though he does not explain why. As to the second reason, Yeyille implies that 

Judge Altonaga knew the school board might hire Holland & Knight to work on an 

unrelated matter in the future, so she dismissed Yeyille’s case because it 

“constituted an obstacle” to that agreement and “in exchange for a retainer 

contract.”

Yeyille makes serious accusations against the judiciary—including branding 

the judges of the Southern District of Florida “mere agents and hacks.” Yet he 

supports these accusations with no facts. As a member of the bar, he should know 

better. Regarding the “Bench and Bar Conference,” Yeyille identifies nothing 

beyond shared membership in the forty-two-person steering committee that could 

suggest Judge Altonaga was biased in favor of opposing counsel. An objective, 

disinterested, lay observer would not entertain a significant doubt about Judge 

Altonaga’s impartiality based on her mere participation in a large conference in 

which an attorney who appeared before her also participated. See Parker, 855 F.2d 

 

unrelated case, making it appear that Judge Altonaga helped her husband’s law firm secure the 

Dominican Republic as a client. This allegation is not related to Yeyille’s recusal motion in this 

case. Finally, Yeyille claims that some relatives of judges in the Southern District of Florida 

work for Miami law firms, which makes the court “resemble[] a private court run by an 

oligarchy composed of the local noblesse de robe similar to a French parlement before the 

Revolution.” This allegation is also unrelated to Yeyille’s recusal motion.

USCA11 Case: 15-15548 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 4 of 5
5

at 1524. This type of unsupported and tenuous allegation does not warrant recusal. 

See Giles, 853 F.2d at 878.

The same goes for Yeyille’s second ground for recusal—that the school 

board retained Holland & Knight on an unrelated matter after Judge Altonaga 

dismissed Yeyille’s case. Although Yeyille claims this creates the appearance of a 

quid pro quo agreement, he presents no relevant facts supporting the existence of 

such an agreement. To the contrary, the facts show that: (1) Judge Altonaga 

dismissed Yeyille’s case before the school board even began the process of 

selecting a law firm in the other matter; and (2) the matter for which the school 

board sought representation was wholly unrelated to Yeyille’s case. This was not a 

sufficient ground for recusal.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Yeyille’s recusal 

motion, because he failed to show that an objective observer would question Judge 

Altonaga’s impartiality. We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Yeyille’s 

motion. Yeyille’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-15548 Date Filed: 05/31/2016 Page: 5 of 5