FOR PUBLICATION
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN RE COMPLAINT Nos. 10-90031
OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT and
10-90032
ORDER
Filed January 14, 2011
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Complainant, a pro se prisoner, attempts to relitigate his
habeas petition by alleging that a magistrate judge and a dis-
trict judge committed misconduct when they denied him
relief. These charges are dismissed because they relate
directly to the merits of the judges’ rulings. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 352(b)(1)(A)(ii); Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(B); In re
Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 685 F.2d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir.
Jud. Council 1982).
Complainant further alleges that the judges “knowingly,
willingly, illegally and unlawfully assigned petitioner a
bogus, dubious, fictitious [appellate docket] number . . . in an
effort to help achieve an illegal conviction.” Complainant
appears to believe that his appellate docket number matches
that of an MDL case from the Northern District of Ohio. But
the case numbers aren’t an exact match. Even if they were,
the fact that unrelated cases from different jurisdictions have
similar docket numbers raises no inference of confusion or
wrongdoing. In fact, it would be strange if such matches
didn’t occur on occasion. The docket number to which com-
717
718 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
plainant refers as “bogus” was the correct number for his
appeal. In any event, complainant presented no evidence that
either judge played a role in assigning the appellate docket
number to his appeal; docket numbers are assigned by the
Clerk of the Court of Appeals. See 9th Cir. G.O. 2.1. Because
there is no evidence of misconduct, these charges must be dis-
missed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Judicial-Conduct
Rule 11(c)(1)(D).
Nor is there any evidence supporting complainant’s allega-
tion that his “C.O.A. was never adjudicated.” The district
judge denied complainant’s motion for a certificate of
appealability less than a month after the motion was filed, and
the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability less than
two months after complainant submitted this complaint. This
charge is therefore dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(B);
Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(A).
Complainant submitted a thick stack of exhibits, including
trial testimony, a letter to the clerk concerning the docket
number and a photocopied page about the actual innocence
doctrine. These exhibits were reviewed to the extent they
were referenced in the brief statement of facts and aren’t
merits-related. The remaining exhibits were disregarded. See
In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 09-90239, 2010
WL 5300813, at *2 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2010).
Complainant’s supplemental filing alleges that two circuit
judges committed misconduct in denying him a certificate of
appealability and assigning him the supposedly “bogus”
appellate docket number. These are essentially the same
charges complainant leveled against the magistrate and dis-
trict judges in his initial complaint, and they must be dis-
missed for the same reasons.
DISMISSED.