FOR PUBLICATION
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN RE COMPLAINT No. 07-89141
OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
ORDER
Filed April 13, 2010
Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Procter Hug, Jr.,
Sidney R. Thomas, M. Margaret McKeown,
Ronald M. Gould and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,
Circuit Judges, Audrey B. Collins, Irma E. Gonzalez
and Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judges, and
Terry J. Hatter, Jr. and Robert H. Whaley, District Judges.
ORDER
Pursuant to Article V of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and
Judicial-Disability Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 352(c),
complainant filed a petition for review of the order of Chief
Judge Kozinski, entered on August 27, 2009, dismissing his
misconduct complaint and four supplements against a district
judge.
We have carefully reviewed the record and the authorities
cited by the Chief Judge in his order of dismissal. We con-
clude there is no basis for overturning the order of dismissal.
For the reasons stated by Chief Judge Kozinski and based
upon the controlling authority cited in support thereof, we
affirm.
Further, the August 27, 2009, order required complainant to
show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his abuse of
the misconduct complaint procedure. Complainant filed a
5503
5504 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
petition for review alleging that the chief judge improperly
handled his complaint, and reiterating his disputes with the
subject district judge’s rulings in his underlying case.
Complainant’s lengthy and frivolous complaint and supple-
ments, as well as two additional misconduct complaints, Nos.
09-90209 and 09-90219, filed after the order to show cause
and raising the same baseless allegations, have wasted consid-
erable judicial resources. Sanctions are warranted. We impose
a $1,000.00 fine for abuse of the misconduct process. Pay-
ment shall be made by check to the Clerk of the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, P.O. Box 193939, San Fran-
cisco, California, 94119-3939, within 21 days of the filing of
this Order. Further, pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Rules for
Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, we con-
clude that complainant’s right to file misconduct complaints
should be restricted. We direct the Clerk to enter the follow-
ing pre-filing review order:
Pre-Filing Review Order
(1) This pre-filing review order shall apply to all miscon-
duct complaints or petitions for review filed by complainant.
This order shall not apply to appeals or petitions in which
complainant has counsel or where the district court has
expressly certified in its order that the appeal or petition is not
frivolous.
(2) Any future misconduct complaint or petition for review
filed by complainant shall comply with the requirements of
the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Pro-
ceedings, and shall contain the sentence “THIS COM-
PLAINT/PETITION IS FILED SUBJECT TO PRE-FILING
REVIEW ORDER No. 07-89141” in capital letters in the cap-
tion of the complaint or petition.
(3) If complainant submits a misconduct complaint or peti-
tion for review in compliance with this order, the Clerk shall
IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 5505
lodge the complaint or petition and accompanying documents.
The Clerk shall not file the complaint or petition until com-
plainant’s submission is reviewed and a determination is
made as to whether it merits further review and should be
filed.
(4) This pre-filing review order shall remain in effect until
further order of the Judicial Council. Complainant may, no
earlier than April 1, 2012, petition the Judicial Council to lift
this pre-filing review order, setting forth the reasons why the
order should be lifted.
Complainant’s failure to comply with this order shall result
in any new misconduct complaints or petitions for review
being dismissed or not being filed and other sanctions being
levied as the Judicial Council may deem appropriate.