Before the Administrative District Judge (“ADJ”) is an “emergency” motion by Defendant Diego Rodriguez, pro se, to disqualify the presiding judge in this action and reassign the case to a neutral judge. Specifically, Rodriguez claims that the Honorable Nancy Baskin failed to properly rule on his Rule 40(b), IRCP, motion to disqualify for cause and, therefore, has been acting without jurisdiction in this case. He further accuses Judge Baskin of judicial misconduct or bias, claiming her continued administration of this case violates his due process rights. Citing to I.C. § 907 and IRCP 40(d), Rodriguez asserts the ADJ must disqualify Judge Baskin, immediately reassign the case and deem all her rulings made subsequent to his motion to disqualify void for lack of jurisdiction.

Even if there were merit in Rodriguez’s claims, Rodriguez’s remedy, is not with the ADJ. While the ADJ has supervisory authority over the operation of the district courts under I.C. § 1-907, such authority does not extend to substantive matters within a case. Two Jinn, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. of the Fourth Judicial. List., 150 Idaho 647, 649, 249, P.3d 840, 842 (2011). There is nothing in that statute that gives the ADJ the ability to determine whether Judge Baskin properly handled Rodriguez’s motion to disqualify or is otherwise biased or prejudiced for purposes of IRCP 40(b). Moreover, the ADJ’s duty to appoint a new judge under IRCP 40(d) is triggered only by the disqualification of the presiding judge, which has not occurred in this case.

In sum, the relief Rodriguez seeks is outside the province of the ADJ and his motion is, therefore, DENIED. To the extent Rodriguez believes Judge Baskin is improperly exercising jurisdiction in the case, it is a matter he must address with Judge Baskin, on appeal, or through some other procedurally appropriate petition with the Idaho Supreme Court.

IT IS ORDERED.

Dated this 29th day of July 2025
Steven Hippler