On Wednesday, August 3, 2022, the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit entered an order denying a petition for review filed by an unnamed complainant in the judicial conduct proceeding relating to a United States district judge.

In December 2010, the subject judge sentenced the complainant to a total term of five years of probation. The complainant was charged with committing a crime by failing to conduct a complete survey of a vessel and knowingly making a false official statement that the vessel complied with a certain treaty.

The complainant filed Petitions for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis on three separate dates – April 2018, November 2019, and December 2019 – raising various challenges to his convictions. The subject judge denied all the petitions and warned the complainant that further abusive litigation could result in sanctions.

In January 2021 in the original criminal case, the complainant filed a motion for leave to file a Coram Nobis petition, arguing that exculpatory evidence had been withheld that caused a “jurisdictional error” in the case. Later that month, the subject judge issued an order denying the motion for leave to file and directing the complainant to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. In February 2021, the subject Judge entered an order imposing sanctions on the complainant and directing the clerk not to accept further pleadings pertaining to his convictions unless signed by a member of the court’s bar.

The complainant filed three complaints of judicial misconduct or disability against the subject judge pertaining to the above-described case. The complainant alleged the subject judge falsified facts, was aware the indictment was defective, allowed the prosecution to engage in misconduct, “closed all venues,” and abused his power.

Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. dismissed all the complaints as merits related and based on allegations lacking sufficient evidence.

The complainant filed a petition for review on May 9, 2022, but the Judicial Council denied the petition, stating that: “no judge on this panel has requested that this matter be placed on the agenda of a meeting of the Judicial Council.”

The order reads:

“The Judicial Council Review Panel hereby AFFIRMS the disposition of this matter by Chief Judge Pryor. The petition for review is DENIED.”

A copy of the original filing can be found here.