United States v. 2009-09-30 | 08-90087 | IN RE COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT | precedential | opinion |

FOR PUBLICATION
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 IN RE COMPLAINT Nos. 08-90087,
OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 08-90088,
08-90089,
08-90090,
08-90091,
08-90092,
08-90093,
08-90094,
08-90095,
 08-90096,
08-90097,
08-90098,
08-90099,
08-90100,
08-90101
and
08-90102
ORDER

Filed September 30, 2009
Before: David R. Thompson, Sidney R. Thomas,
Susan P. Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, and
Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges, Audrey B. Collins,
Irma E. Gonzalez, and Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District
Judges, and Terry J. Hatter and Robert H. Whaley,
District Judges.
ORDER
On April 15, 2009, the Chief Judge entered an order that
required complainant to show cause why he should not be
14043

-- 1 of 8 --

sanctioned for his abuse of the misconduct complaint proce-
dure. Complainant did not file a response.
We have carefully reviewed the record. Complainant has
filed two misconduct complaints naming thirteen federal
judges, raising outlandish and unsupported claims that the
judges destroyed evidence and somehow participated in a
conspiracy with a state court judge to convict him of murder.
Both misconduct complaints have been dismissed as conclu-
sory.
In his second misconduct complaint, complainant names
certain members of the Judicial Council solely because they
dismissed his petition for review of the first misconduct com-
plaint. Judicial Conduct Rule 25(g) provides that Judicial
Council members who are named in a misconduct proceeding
may participate in its disposition if:
(A) participation by one or more subject judges is
necessary to obtain a quorum of the judicial council;
(B) the judicial council finds that the lack of a
quorum is due to the naming of one or more judges
in the complaint for the purpose of disqualifying that
judge or judges, or to the naming of one or more
judges based on their participation in a decision
excluded from the definition of misconduct under
Rule 3(h)(3); and
(C) the judicial council votes that it is necessary,
appropriate, and in the interest of sound judicial
administration that one or more subject judges be eli-
gible to act.
This is clearly a case that meets all of these criteria. Com-
plainant names most of the Judicial Council members solely
because they denied his petition for review, a merits-related
decision that is not cognizable under Judicial-Conduct Rule
14044 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

-- 2 of 8 --

3(h)(3). Further, the Commentary to Judicial-Conduct Rule 25
recognizes that multiple-judge complaints are “virtually
always meritless,” and holds that is not unfair to permit sub-
ject judges to participate in the review of the chief judge’s
dismissal of an insubstantial complaint. It is both necessary to
obtain a quorum and in the interest of sound judicial adminis-
tration that the subject Judicial Council members are eligible
to act in this case.
Pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct
and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, we conclude that com-
plainant’s right to file further misconduct complaints should
be restricted. We direct the Clerk to enter the following pre-
filing review order:
Pre-Filing Review Order
(1) This pre-filing review order shall apply to all miscon-
duct complaints or petitions for review filed by complainant.
(2) Any future misconduct complaint or petition for review
filed by complainant shall comply with the requirements of
the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Pro-
ceedings, and shall contain the sentence “THIS COM-
PLAINT/PETITION IS FILED SUBJECT TO PRE-FILING
REVIEW ORDER Nos. 08-90087, 08-90088, 08-90089, 08-
90090, 08-90091, 08-90092, 08-90093, 08-90094, 08-90095,
08-90096, 08-90097, 08-90098, 08-90099, 08-90100, 08-
90101 and 08-90102” in capital letters in the caption of the
complaint or petition.
(3) If complainant submits a misconduct complaint or peti-
tion for review in compliance with this order, the Clerk shall
lodge the complaint or petition and accompanying documents.
The Clerk shall not file the complaint or petition until com-
plainant’s submission is reviewed and a determination is
made as to whether it merits further review and should be
filed.
14045 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

-- 3 of 8 --

(4) This pre-filing review order shall remain in effect until
further order of the Judicial Council. Complainant may, no
earlier than October 1, 2011, petition the Judicial Council to
lift this pre-filing review order, setting forth the reasons why
the order should be lifted.
Complainant’s failure to comply with this order shall result
in any new misconduct complaints or petitions for review
being dismissed or not being filed and other sanctions being
levied as the Judicial Council may deem appropriate.
14046 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

-- 4 of 8 --

-- 5 of 8 --

-- 6 of 8 --

-- 7 of 8 --

PRINTED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.

-- 8 of 8 --