FILED
FOR PUBLICATION JAN 05 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
JUDICIAL COUNCIL U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN RE COMPLAINT OF Nos. 07-89142, 07-89144,
08-89012, 08-89030, 08-90029,
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 08-90030, 08-90031, 08-90032,
and 08-90033
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Five misconduct complaints have been filed against a circuit judge, four
district judges and four magistrate judges. Complainant, a pro se prisoner, filed
several civil rights actions and habeas petitions in district court. The subject
judges were assigned to those matters.
Complainant alleges that the judges made improper substantive and
procedural rulings. These claims relate directly to the merits of the judges’ rulings
and must therefore be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii); Misconduct
Rule 4(c)(1); Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(B). A misconduct complaint is not a
proper vehicle for challenging the merits of a judge’s rulings. See In re Charge of
Judicial Misconduct, 685 F.2d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 1982).
Complainant alleges that the judges were biased and discriminated against
page 2
him on the basis of race. Complainant also alleges that the judges conspired
against him. But complainant hasn’t provided any objectively verifiable proof (for
example, names of witnesses, recorded documents or transcripts) to support his
allegations of bias, racism and conspiracy. Because there isn’t sufficient evidence
to raise an inference that misconduct occurred, these charges must be dismissed.
See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Misconduct Rule 4(c)(3); Judicial-Conduct Rule
11(c)(1)(D).
Complainant further alleges that several of the judges improperly delayed
rulings in his cases. Delay is not a proper subject of a misconduct complaint unless
the circumstances are extraordinary, such as “where the delay is habitual, is
improperly motivated or is the product of improper animus or prejudice toward a
particular litigant, or, possibly, where the delay is of such an extraordinary or
egregious character as to constitute a clear dereliction of judicial responsibilities.”
Commentary on Misconduct Rule 1. Such is not the case here.
Complainant’s allegations against court staff must be dismissed because this
complaint procedure applies only to federal judges. See Misconduct Rule 1(d).
Complainant has filed at least sixteen previous misconduct complaints, all of
which have been dismissed because complainant’s allegations were conclusory
and/or related to the merits of the subject judges’ rulings. Complainant is therefore
page 3
ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned by an order requiring him
to obtain leave before filing any further misconduct complaints. See Judicial-
Conduct Rule 10(a); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 527 F.3d 792,
796–97 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2008). Complainant has thirty days from the filing
of this order to file a response, which will be transmitted to the Judicial Council for
its consideration.
DISMISSED and COMPLAINANT ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE.