IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL, No. 08-90241 (9th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FOR PUBLICATION JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT ï£¼ ï£½ ï£¾ IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT No. 08-90241 ORDER Filed October 19, 2009 ORDER KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: Complainant, a pro se litigant, has filed a hefty misconduct complaint replete with addendums, exhibits, hearing transcripts, news articles and sundry other bits of information a total of over 400 pages. The judge who is the subject of this tome was assigned to complainant s civil case in district court. The gist of complainant s allegations appears to be that the judge has unduly delayed the resolution of her case. But delay is not misconduct unless the allegation concerns an improper motive in delaying a particular decision or habitual delay in a significant number of unrelated cases. Judicial-Conduct Rule 3(h)(3)(B). Complainant provides no evidence of improper motive or habitual delay and, in any event, the docket reveals that the judge has ruled on complainant s 86page complaint. Because there was no misconduct, no further action is required. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 567 F.3d 429, 431 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2009). Complainant also accuses the judge of bias against her because she is pro se and demands that the judge prove and document compliance with the mandates that govern [the 14563 14564 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT judge s] fiduciary duties. These vague accusations and convoluted demands don t satisfy complainant s obligation to provide objective evidence of misconduct. This charge is therefore dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(D). Finally, complainant s concern that I, as Chief Judge, am overwhelmed by the charge of judicial misconduct, does not provide a basis for disqualification under JudicialConduct Rule 25. If complainant disagrees, she is free to file a petition for review by the Council and ask it to assign someone else to the matter. In re Complaint Against Seventeen Judicial Officers, Nos. 07-09-90001 to 90017 (7th Cir. Jud. Council 2009). DISMISSED. 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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.