United States v. 2009-09-23 | 08-90149 | IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT | precedential |…

FOR PUBLICATION
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 IN RE COMPLAINT Nos. 08-90149,
OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 09-90102,
09-90103
 and
09-90104
ORDER

Filed September 23, 2009
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Two misconduct complaints have been filed against four
district judges. Complainant filed three civil rights actions in
district court and the matters were assigned to the subject
judges.
The first misconduct complaint alleges that one of the
judges improperly issued an order to show cause and improp-
erly designated complainant a vexatious litigant. These claims
relate directly to the merits of the judge’s rulings and must
therefore be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii);
Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(B); In re Charge of Judicial
Misconduct, 685 F.2d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. Jud. Council
1982).
The first complaint also asserts that one of the judges was
biased against complainant because the judge harbors racist
prejudices. But complainant hasn’t provided any objectively
verifiable proof (for example, names of witnesses, recorded
13735

-- 1 of 4 --

documents or transcripts) to support these allegations, and
adverse rulings alone do not constitute proof of bias. Because
there is no evidence that misconduct occurred, these charges
must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii);
Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(D); In re Complaint of Judi-
cial Misconduct, 569 F.3d 1093, 1093 (9th Cir. Jud. Council
2009).
The second misconduct complaint is so unclear that it’s
hard to understand what complainant alleges. As best as one
can tell, complainant appears to allege that three of the judges
conspired with “a mob.” Again, complainant hasn’t provided
any objectively verifiable proof to support these allegations,
and adverse rulings alone do not constitute proof of a conspir-
acy. These charges must therefore be dismissed as well.
To the extent that complainant raises allegations against
prosecuting attorneys, these charges must be dismissed
because this complaint procedure applies only to federal
judges. See Judicial-Conduct Rule 4; In re Complaint of Judi-
cial Misconduct, 567 F.3d 429, 431 (9th Cir. Jud. Council
2009).
Complainant has filed numerous misconduct complaints
over the past fifteen years. Several previous complaints have
been dismissed because complainant’s allegations were con-
clusory and related to the merits of an underlying decision.
Complainant has also used abusive language in the current
and past complaints. In my order dismissing his last miscon-
duct complaint, I directed complainant’s attention to Miscon-
duct Rule 1(g), which provides that a “complainant who files
vexatious, repetitive, harassing, or frivolous complaints, or
otherwise abuses the complaint procedure,” may be restricted
from filing further complaints. See In re Complaint of Judicial
Misconduct, No. 07-89137 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2008).
Complainant has now filed two more frivolous misconduct
complaints against four judges, in addition to at least twelve
13736 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

-- 2 of 4 --

other misconduct complaints over the past fifteen years. Com-
plainant is therefore ordered to show cause why he should not
be sanctioned by an order requiring him to obtain leave before
filing any further misconduct complaints. See Judicial-
Conduct Rule 10(a); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct,
552 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2009). Complain-
ant has thirty days from the filing of this order to file a
response, which will be transmitted to the Judicial Council for
its consideration.
DISMISSED and COMPLAINANT ORDERED TO
SHOW CAUSE.
13737 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

-- 3 of 4 --

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.

-- 4 of 4 --