Judicial Council of the Eighth Circuit order: 08-21-90046, 08-21-90047, 08-21-90048

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
__________
JCP Nos. 08-21-90046, 90047, 90048
__________
In re Complaint of John Doe*
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Circuit Judge, LOKEN, L.R. SMITH, GRUENDER,
SHEPHERD, KELLY, ERICKSON, GRASZ, STRAS, KOBES, and JUSTIN D.
SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LANGE, WIMES, BAKER, ROSE, BROOKS,
WILLIAMS, TOSTRUD, CLARK, WELTE, and BUESCHER, District Judges.
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
BY THE COUNCIL:
This is a complaint of judicial misconduct by a former court unit executive
against a former chief district judge and two other district judges. The former chief
circuit judge appointed a special committee under Rule 11(f) to investigate the
complaint and to make a recommendation to the judicial council. The special
committee submitted a report with recommended factual findings and a
recommendation to dismiss the complaint. The judicial council has considered the
report and concludes that the complaint should be dismissed under Rule
20(b)(1)(A)(i) and (iii).
*Under Rule 24(a)(2) and (a)(5) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-
Disability Proceedings, the names of the complainant and the subject judges are not
disclosed. Citations or references herein to a “Rule” refer to these Rules.

The complaint concerns primarily a personnel decision by the district judges
to remove the complainant from a unit executive position. The complainant pursued
a separate complaint under the district court’s employment dispute resolution plan,
but that complaint was dismissed as untimely.
In this proceeding, the complainant asserts that the judges “engaged in conduct
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the
courts,” and engaged in “‘abusive or harassing behavior’ by ‘creating a hostile work
environment for judicial employees.’” The complaint asserts that the judges have
done so “by fabricating the reasons that led to” the complainant’s “forced retirement”
as a unit executive.
The complainant recounts that he was summoned one morning to a meeting in
the chambers of the then-chief district judge. During the meeting, the chief judge and
the other two subject judges said that the judges of the district court unanimously had
lost confidence in the complainant’s ability to manage and lead the court unit. The
judges also said the court had found that the complainant and his deputy had
exhibited abusive and retaliatory management conduct, which adversely impacted the
operations of the court and the court unit, and that the employees no longer could
function effectively due to lack of trust in the complainant’s leadership. The judges
also allegedly told the complainant that he had retaliated against staff for reporting
concerns by frequently threatening to take away assignments or projects.
The complaint asserts that the judges presented the complainant with a letter
that outlined multiple issues regarding his conduct as unit executive. The
complainant states that he was given about two minutes to read the letter and was not
afforded an opportunity to respond. He was told that he could not have a copy of the
letter, and that the letter would be destroyed if he chose to retire. The complainant
reports that he was escorted out of the courthouse by two deputy U.S. Marshals and
given twenty-four hours to decide on a course of action. The complainant asserts that
-2-

he was told that he would be terminated if he disputed the allegations contained in the
letter. He says that he then chose to retire because he “had no real recourse.”
The remainder of the complaint is a discussion of the performance issues raised
in the letter from the judges. The complainant defends his leadership of the court unit
and objects to the lack of any process for him to respond to the court’s concerns.
The subject judges responded to the complaint. The judges explained that after
the departure of an unusually high number of court unit employees, exit interviews
with departing employees led to an investigation of the leadership of the court unit.
The three judges and a court human relations officer met with seventeen court unit
employees. All judges of the district court then gathered and determined to remove
the unit executive and his deputy from their executive positions. The letter that the
judges provided to the complainant set forth information gathered from employee
interviews. The judges gave the complainant the option to retire in lieu of a
demotion, and he chose to retire.
The judicial council concludes that the actions of the judges in making and
carrying out the personnel decision are not cognizable misconduct. The judicial
misconduct process “cannot be used to second-guess [a] judge’s administrative
decision.” In re Judicial Misconduct, 726 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2013). Like an
allegation that calls into question the correctness of a judge’s ruling in a case, see
Rule 4(b)(1), an allegation that calls into question the correctness of a judge’s
personnel decision is not cognizable misconduct. Allegations about the judge’s
decisionmaking process—such as whether to make a final decision based on
interviews with seventeen employees without soliciting rebuttal from the unit
executive—are directly related to the merits of the personnel decision and do not
support a claim of cognizable misconduct. The judiciary maintains a separate
employment dispute resolution process that is available to employees who dispute a
personnel decision, and that is the proper avenue to challenge such a decision.
-3-

The related allegations about implementation of the personnel decision
likewise do not establish cognizable misconduct. Offering an employee the option
of demotion or resignation in lieu of termination is a “useful management tool” and
is not misconduct. In re Judicial Misconduct, 726 F.3d at 1061. Arranging for an
escort by deputy marshals while emotions may be running high is within the range of
reasonable administrative decisions and is not cognizable misconduct.
The complainant filed a supplement to his complaint that makes separate
allegations. The supplement expresses concern that “individuals employed by” the
district court “have shared information about the confidential personnel action that
is the subject of my complaint” with the complainant’s current employer, the public,
and a current employee of the district court.
In particular, the supplement cites a lawsuit filed in state court by the court
employee against the complainant. According to the supplement, the employee’s
petition alleged in part that the complainant had filed an unfounded judicial
misconduct complaint that allegedly defamed the court employee. The supplement
also cited a post on Twitter by a local attorney asserting that the complainant had
been dismissed from federal employment for misappropriation of funds. The
supplement alleges that approximately three months later, the chief judge selected the
lawyer’s husband as a magistrate judge in the district court, but does not explain how
the husband’s judicial appointment is relevant to the allegation of misconduct.
The complaint supplement does not establish misconduct by the subject judges.
The supplement does not even allege that the judges made inappropriate disclosures
that might have violated confidentiality rules, but refers instead to possible
disclosures by “individuals employed by” the court. The special committee obtained
a copy of the court employee’s petition filed in state court. The committee found that
while the petition referred to a judicial complaint filed by the complainant, the
petition inaccurately described both the month of filing and the content of the
-4-

complaint. When interviewed, the court employee said that she heard rumors of
judicial ethics complaints, but did not know anything about judicial complaints or
their contents. The special committee also found that the lawyer’s post on Twitter
inaccurately described the complainant’s federal employer and how and why he left
federal employment—there was no allegation that the complainant misappropriated
federal funds. When asked during an interview whether anyone with the federal
judiciary was the source of information conveyed in her post, the lawyer replied
“absolutely not.” The judicial council adopts these findings of the special committee.
The council further concludes that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the
subject judges disclosed information about the complainant’s judicial complaint to
the court employee or to the lawyer who posted on Twitter.
For these reasons, the judicial complaint is dismissed. The complainant and
the subject judges may petition for review of this order under Rule 21(b).
Filed: July 23, 2026
______________________________
-5-