Summary
The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council dismissed a pro se litigant’s judicial-misconduct complaint. Allegations concerning the merits of judicial rulings, alleged bias inferred from adverse rulings, and conduct by government attorneys were insufficient or outside the scope of the judicial-misconduct complaint procedure. The council also held that going off the record, without an improper motive or prejudice to the administration of justice, did not support a misconduct charge.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether allegations challenging the merits of a district judge's substantive and procedural rulings may be pursued through a judicial-misconduct complaint.
- Whether a judge's going off the record during a hearing, followed by a written order preserving the challenged instruction in the record, constitutes conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the courts absent an improper motive.
- Whether directing a party to move for summary judgment, stating that the motion could be granted, and making rulings adverse to a pro se litigant establish judicial bias.
- Whether allegations against government attorneys may be addressed through the federal judicial-conduct complaint procedure.
Holdings
- A judicial-misconduct complaint is not a proper vehicle for challenging a judge's substantive or procedural rulings on the merits; such allegations must be dismissed as merits-related.
- Going off the record is not itself judicial misconduct, although it could constitute misconduct if done to insulate an action from appellate review or for another improper motive. Here, the allegation was insufficient because the judge preserved the instruction in a written order and no improper motive was alleged.
- Directing a party to move for summary judgment, stating that the motion could be granted, and issuing adverse rulings do not, without objectively verifiable supporting evidence, establish judicial bias.
- The judicial-conduct complaint procedure applies only to federal judges and therefore cannot be used to pursue allegations against government attorneys.
Key quotations
“A misconduct complaint is not a proper vehicle to challenge a judge’s rulings on the merits.” (5053)
“Going off the record is not itself misconduct, although it is not advisable and could be misconduct if the judge does so in order to insulate an action from appellate review or for some other improper motive.” (5053)
“Directing a party to move for summary judgment is not proof of bias; it may be intended to preserve scarce judicial resources and avoid unnecessary trials.” (5054)
Factual background
The complainant alleged that a district judge made improper substantive and procedural rulings in his cases. He also alleged that the judge went off the record during a hearing and suggested that the government file a summary-judgment motion based on sovereign immunity. Finally, he alleged that the judge was biased against him because he was proceeding pro se and favored government attorneys. The judge later filed an order directing the government to move for summary judgment, and ultimately did not grant the motion.
Procedural history
The complainant challenged rulings and conduct by a federal district judge. The Judicial Council dismissed the merits-related allegations, dismissed the off-the-record and bias allegations for failure to allege conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the courts or for lack of objectively verifiable evidence, and dismissed allegations against government attorneys because the procedure applies only to federal judges.