FOR PUBLICATION
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN RE COMPLAINT Nos. 09-90005,
OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 09-90085,
09-90148,
09-90234,
09-90235
and
09-90236
ORDER
Filed January 24, 2011
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Complainant, a pro se litigant, filed four misconduct com-
plaints and seven supplements against four judges assigned to
his civil rights cases in district court. One of the complaints
must be dismissed because it only challenges the merits of a
judge’s rulings. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii); Judicial-
Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(B). This complaint also alleges
unspecified “judicial corruption,” but such a conclusory alle-
gation can’t support a charge of judicial misconduct. See In
re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 569 F.3d 1093, 1093
(9th Cir. 2009).
The other three complaints lack a “[b]rief [s]tatement of
[f]acts” that concisely details the alleged misconduct.
Judicial-Conduct Rule 6(b). Instead of complying with Rule
6(b), complainant presents hundreds of pages of exhibits,
which include court orders from his cases, various motions
1335
1336 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
he’s filed, letters he’s sent and “newsletters” he’s written. His
statements of facts consist entirely of references to these
exhibits. For example, one complaint states that the “[f]acts
are contained in the attached judge’s order, motion for recon-
sideration, and newsletter emailed/faxed to 230-plus nation-
al/state congress members, media, civil rights organizations,
etc.”
A complainant may not circumvent Rule 6(b)’s require-
ment of a brief statement of facts by referencing other materi-
als. “The brief statement of facts required by section 351(a)
must be prepared specifically for the misconduct proceeding
. . . .” In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 09-90239,
slip op. 20,665, 20,665 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2010). And the
statement must be a self-contained narrative “set[ting] forth
the alleged misconduct in a clear and straightforward fash-
ion.” Id. “Although complainants may attach exhibits . . .
[that] directly support the allegations of misconduct or dis-
ability,” exhibits aren’t a substitute for the brief statement of
facts required by Rule 6(b). Id. at 20,666.
These three complaints would therefore be summarily dis-
missed but for complainant’s supplements. See id. at 20,667.
A complainant may file supplements to bring to the Council’s
attention additional misconduct by the subject judge since the
filing of the original complaint, or additional evidence of the
misconduct alleged in the original complaint. This informa-
tion will be considered in conjunction with the allegations and
evidence in the original complaint in determining whether the
complaint supports a finding of misconduct or disability. See
28 U.S.C. § 352(a). Some of complainant’s supplements con-
tain allegations of misconduct in a format that complies with
Rule 6(b).
In these supplements, complainant alleges that three district
judges made various improper rulings in his case. While com-
plainant is obviously very unhappy with the judges’ rulings,
there is a disappointed litigant in almost every case; that is the
IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 1337
nature of the adversarial process. It’s inappropriate to seek to
relitigate the merits of a case by way of the misconduct pro-
cess. Therefore, these charges must be dismissed as relating
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 also claims that one of the judges knew that
a document was improperly removed from the court file, and
that he and two other judges conspired to cover this up.
Despite the volume of paper he submits, complainant hasn’t
provided any objectively verifiable proof to support these
allegations. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 569
F.3d 1093, 1093 (9th Cir. 2009). They must be dismissed as
lacking sufficient evidence to support an inference of miscon-
duct. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Judicial-Conduct
Rule 11(c)(1)(D).
Complainant’s allegations against lawyers, court staff and
a state judge are dismissed because the misconduct complaint
procedure applies only to federal judges. See Judicial-Conduct
Rule 4.
Even considering the supplements, the complaints don’t
support a finding of misconduct or disability, so they are all
dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1).
Finally, complainant uses highly abusive language to
describe the judges. For example, he refers to the judges as
“racketeers,” “Sideshow Freak[s]” and “black-robed thugs
performing like court jesters.” Such invectives do nothing to
advance complainant’s case. Complainant is cautioned that if
he continues to file “repetitive, harassing, or frivolous com-
plaints,” or to otherwise “abuse[ ] the complaint procedure,”
he will be restricted from filing further complaints. Judicial-
Conduct Rule 10(a); see In re Complaint of Judicial Miscon-
duct, 552 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2009).
DISMISSED.