Complaint of Judicial Misconduct Against U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent (Second Order) PDF

r=~HE JUDICIAL COU~C'IL
~ OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
FILED
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT OFr. 20 2007
•• 	Gregory A. Nussel
Before: Edith H. Jones, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals ~ r ~retary to the Council
Fifth Circuit; Jerry E. Smith, U. S. Circuit Judge; W. Eugene DaVcl~·s~2 	_
U. S. Circuit Judge; Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., U. S. Circuit Judge;
Rhesa H. Barksdale, U. S. Circuit Judge; Emilio M. Garza, U. S.
Circuit Judge; Fortunato P. Benavides, U. S. Circuit Judge; Carl E.
Stewart, U. S. Circuit Judge; James L. Dennis, U. S. Circuit Judge;
Priscilla R. Owen, U. S. Circuit Judge; Sarah S. Vance, U. S. District
Judge; James J. Brady, U. S. District Judge; Tucker L. MelaD(;on,
U. S. District Judge; Michael P. Mills, U. S. District Judge; Louis
Guirola, Jr., U. S. District Judge; Sam R. Cummings, U. S. District
Judge; Hayden Head, U. S. District Judge; Thad Heartfield, U. S.
District Judge; Fred Biery, U. S. District Judge
DOCKET NO. 07-05-351-0086
IN RE: 	Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against United States
District Judge Samuel B. Kent under the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980
ORDER
A Special Investigatory Committee was appointed by the Chief Judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 353(a) to investigate a complaint filed on May 21, 2007, by Cathy
McBroom ("complainant") alleging that United States District Judge Samuel B. Kent
("Judge Kent") has engaged in judicial misconduct. 	The Special Investigatory
Committee conducted an extensive investigation.

Thereafter, on September 11, 2007, the Special Investigatory Committee
forwarded to the Judicial Council a comprehensive written Report presenting both the
findings of the investigation and the Committee's recommendation for necessary and
appropriate action by the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council entered its Order on
September 28, 2007.
The complainant in these proceedings filed a motion for reconsideration,
seeking a determination under 28 U.S.C. § 354(b) that Judge Kent may have engaged
in conduct in violation of specific federal criminal statutes which might constitute one
or more grounds for impeachment, and also asks the Council to certify such a
determination, 	if made, to the Judicial Conference 	of the United States. 	The
complainant also alleges that there is additional evidence of misconduct by Judge
Kent. Judge Kent opposes the motion to reconsider.
The United States Department of Justice has subsequently initiated a criminal
investigation, with which the Council is cooperating in keeping with Rule 9(B) of the
Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct ofthe United States Fifth Circuit
("Rules").
The propriety of further discipline in this case, or a certification to the Judicial
Conference of the United States, cannot be fairly evaluated without adversarial
proceedings in which the witnesses are subject to cross-examination. Further, Judge
2

Kent has demanded an adversarial hearing, as is his right, if the Council grants the
motion to reconsider. See Rule 14(B)(3) and (4). Conducting adversarial proceedings
at this time, however, while a criminal investigation is underway, could prejudice that
investigation or be perceived as interfering with it. 	When courts confront parallel
criminal and civil proceedings, it is customary to defer to the criminal investigation
to the extent consistent with the rights of all concerned.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the Council will defer action on the motion
for reconsideration in light of the ongoing investigation. 	If the investigation is not
concluded within 3 months, the Council will revisit the issue. 	In the meantime, the
Council may investigate any newly discovered evidence.
The Council finds that its deferral of the motion for reconsideration does not
prejudice any substantial rights of the complainant.
During the pendency of the criminal investigation, Judge Kent has agreed he
will not handle any civil or criminal cases in which the United States is a party or in
which sexual misconduct of any kind is alleged.
DONE this 20th day of December, 2007.
FOR THE COUNCIL:
Chief Judge
3