The Commission on Judicial Conduct of the State of Arizona disclosed this week that a complaint, with case no. 23-016, has been dismissed on April 20, 2023.

The complaint alleged a superior court judge had violated the law by failing to take judicial notice as requested in two separate civil cases.

The Complaint reads:

“The judge is not being impartial and she is working directly with . . .  to block the Plaintiff from filing any of his documents online by rejecting them in violation of Article 6 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The judge has also been having constant “Ex-Parte” communication with the Defendants in both cases to create situations in both cases where justice will be foreclosed unless Plaintiff . . . accepts the $. . .  offer made by the Defendants in case#        .”

The Complaint continues:

“All the Plaintiff’s requests for hearings have also been ignored. The judge is refusing to file documents that compel her to take notice of illegal activity committed by Defendants in both cases therein. She has placed      on notice to reject all the Plaintiff’s electronic filings and advised . . . to advise the Plaintiff he has to file his documents in person or by mail in an organized effort to continue to create delays.”

The Complaint further alleges:

“The Judge has allowed that case to sit with no activity since for the $. . . offer. The Plaintiff rejected that settlement and invoked his 7th Amendment right to trial by jury and the Judge doesn’t like that.”

Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the complaint, stating among others:

“The role of the Commission on Judicial Conduct is to impartially determine whether a judicial officer has engaged in conduct that violates the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct or Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution. There must be clear and convincing evidence of such a violation in order for the Commission to take disciplinary action against a judicial officer.”

The Order reads:

“The Commission does not have jurisdiction to overturn, amend, or remand a judicial officer’s legal rulings. The Commission reviewed all relevant available information and concluded there was not clear and convincing evidence of ethical misconduct in this matter. The complaint is therefore dismissed pursuant to Commission Rules 16(a) and 23(a).”

A copy of the original filing can be found here.