FOR PUBLICATION
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN RE COMPLAINT Nos. 08-89000,
OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 08-90159,
08-90160,
08-90161,
08-90162,
08-90163,
08-90164,
08-90165,
08-90166,
08-90167,
08-90168,
08-90169,
08-90223,
08-90224,
08-90225,
08-90226,
08-90227,
08-90228,
08-90229
and
08-90230
ORDER
Filed September 30, 2010
Before: 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.
16623
16624 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
ORDER
Pursuant to Article V of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and
Judicial-Disability Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 352(c),
complainant has filed a petition for review of the order of Cir-
cuit Judge Reinhardt,1 entered on November 25, 2009, dis-
missing his complaints against nineteen federal judges.
We have carefully reviewed the record and the authorities
cited by Circuit Judge Reinhardt in the order of dismissal. We
conclude there is no basis for overturning the order of dis-
missal. In his petition for review, complainant contends that
the Ninth Circuit had no jurisdiction over his misconduct
complaints, and that the Judicial Council should have trans-
ferred them to another circuit. This Circuit did not transfer his
complaints pursuant to Judicial-Conduct Rule 25, nor were
the complaints reassigned pursuant to Judicial-Conduct Rule
26. The complaints, which name 19 federal judges and vari-
ous claims were not sufficiently related to a complaint trans-
ferred to another circuit, which named just one judge and
included a narrower scope of claims. Thus, the complaints
were properly decided in this Circuit and should not have
been transferred.
Further, complainant argues that Circuit Judge Reinhardt
should have recused himself from considering these miscon-
duct complaints. A judge’s decision to hear a case rather than
to recuse is merits-related and the Judicial Council, an admin-
istrative body, does not review the correctness of a judge’s
decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); see also Imple-
mentation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980:
A Report to the Chief Justice: Standard 2 for Assessing Com-
pliance with the Act at pp. 145-46 (2006). Further, complain-
ant has not provided evidence to support his bias allegations.
See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii).
1
The complaints were assigned to Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 351(c).
IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 16625
For the reasons stated by Circuit Judge Reinhardt and based
upon the controlling authority cited in support thereof, we
affirm.
On January 25, 2010, the Judicial Council issued an Order
to Show Cause requiring complainant, an attorney, to explain
why sanctions were not warranted for filing frivolous claims,
in part as an admitted litigation tactic. As stated in the Judicial
Council’s Order, complainant knew that “sanctions may be
warranted if a complaint is either frivolous or is submitted for
an improper purpose.” See In re Complaint of Judicial Mis-
conduct, No. 08-89000+ at p. 2 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2010)
(citing See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 550 F.3d
769 (9th Cir. 2008)). In complainant’s response, he continues
to challenge this Circuit’s jurisdiction over these matters, reit-
erates his allegations of misconduct, and otherwise inade-
quately responds to the show cause order.
An attorney filing a frivolous misconduct complaint dimin-
ishes the effectiveness of our system of justice, and also may
have an adverse effect on the random assignment of judges
who may feel compelled to recuse even in light of unfounded
allegations. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 550
F.3d 76 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2008). We conclude that both
a public reprimand and a pre-filing order are appropriate sanc-
tions for this abuse of the misconduct complaint procedure.
This order is not grounded on nor do we take a position on
whether complainant may have violated 28 U.S.C. § 360. This
published order will constitute a public reprimand of Cyrus
Sanai in the form of a published opinion in West’s Federal
Reporter. The Clerk shall also serve this order on the State
Bar of California, 1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA,
90015-2219, to consider appropriate disciplinary action.
Further, we hereby direct the Clerk to enter the following
pre-filing review order:
16626 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Pre-Filing Review Order
(1) This pre-filing review order shall apply to all miscon-
duct complaints or petitions for review filed by complainant
that relate to this matter.
(2) Any future misconduct complaint filed by complainant
shall comply with the requirements of the Rules for Judicial-
Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, and shall con-
tain the following sentence in capital letters “THIS COM-
PLAINT/PETITION IS FILED SUBJECT TO PRE-FILING
REVIEW ORDER Nos. 08-89000, 08-90159, 08-90160, 08-
90161, 08-90162, 08-90163, 08-90164, 08-90165, 08-90166,
08-90167, 08-90168, 08-90169, 08-90223, 08-90224, 08-
90225, 08-90226, 08-90227, 08-90228, 08-90229 and 08-
90230” in the caption of the complaint or petition.
(3) If complainant’s future misconduct complaints are sub-
mitted in compliance with this order, the Clerk shall lodge the
complaint or petition and accompanying documents. The
Clerk shall not file the complaint or petition until the 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 September 1, 2012, petition the court to lift this
pre-filing review order, setting forth the reasons why the order
should be lifted.
Complainant’s failure to comply with the order shall result
in any new complaints that he seeks to file being dismissed
or not being filed and other sanctions being levied, as the
Council may deem appropriate.