On Monday, April 17, 2023, the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit ordered the dismissal of a complaint against an unnamed United States District Judge and U.S. Magistrate Judge based on the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. 351-364.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Unnamed U.S. District and Magistrate Judge” with case no. 11-23-90033 and 11-23-90034.

The complainant initially alleges that the subject judges have engaged in misconduct or are incapable of fulfilling their duties. The complainant claims that the subject judges disregarded her disability, dismissed her doctor’s letter, excluded her from participating in depositions, violated their oaths of office, showed prejudice based on her age, disabilities, and pro se status, issued contradictory and incoherent opinions, and failed to recuse themselves from the case. She further asserts that the subject judges intentionally set her up by organizing a fictitious deposition to incur costs and expenses, using their authority to harm her unjustly.

The complainant asserts that she never consented to having two judges in her case and believes that having two judges undermines fairness, equality, and justice. She then proceeds to raise numerous allegations against the subject magistrate judge. These allegations include improper demands for her medical information, lack of respect for her privacy, rejection of her doctor’s letter due to the doctor being in another state, permitting the opposing party to mistreat her and disregard her need for accommodations, fabricating arguments for the defendant, prejudicially denying her access to the electronic filing system, imposing unreasonable rules, issuing nonsensical orders, addressing issues that were never raised, displaying bias in favor of the defendant, making decisions based on assumptions, exhibiting exceptional rudeness, and harboring animosity towards disabled individuals and pro se litigants.

The complainant accuses the subject magistrate judge of falsifying the transcript and claims that during the hearing on her attorney’s motion to withdraw, the subject magistrate judge displayed confusion, a lack of comprehension of basic concepts, refusal to ask questions or listen to explanations, becoming irrationally angry about her inability to travel a long distance due to her illness, and demonstrating a lack of compassion. She alleges that the subject magistrate judge used threats and anger to intimidate her, misrepresented the process of obtaining medical records, displayed disrespect towards her, and denied her the opportunity to submit medical records under seal.

The complainant believes that the subject magistrate judge and the defendant’s attorney colluded to dismiss her case, required her to pay for depositions that couldn’t occur, and engaged in improper ex parte communications. She suggests that the subject magistrate judge may have emotional or mental disabilities that hindered fair treatment in her case. Urgently, she requests the removal of the subject judges from her case and expresses dissatisfaction with the actions of individuals other than the subject judges, providing supporting documents with her complaint.

The filing states:

“Complainant states she believes the Subject Magistrate Judge and the defendant’s attorney “conferred on making an in-person hearing so they could see what [Complainant’s] disability was,” “worked together to dismiss this case” and to require her to pay for depositions that could not take place, and engaged in im- proper ex parte communications. Complainant states that the Subject Magistrate Judge “may be emotionally or mentally disabled to some degree (in every degree in which he dealt with [Complainant]), making it impossible to receive fair treatment.”

The complaint does not provide grounds for finding misconduct. If the complainant’s allegations pertain to the substance of the subject judges’ official actions, rulings, findings, reports, and orders in the referenced case, those allegations directly relate to the merits of the subject judges’ decisions or procedural rulings. According to Judicial Conduct Rule, such claims are not within the purview of judicial misconduct. Furthermore, the remaining claims made by the complainant lack sufficient evidence to suggest that the subject judges acted with an illicit or improper motive, displayed bias or prejudice, discriminated against the complainant, treated her in a noticeably hostile manner, made misrepresentations, colluded or conspired with the defendant or its attorney, falsified documents, engaged in improper ex parte communications, were affected by a disability, or engaged in any other form of misconduct.

The Disposition states:

“Complainant’s remaining claims are based on allegations lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that the Subject Judges acted with an illicit or improper motive, were biased or prejudiced, discriminated against the Complainant, treated her in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner, made misrepresentations, colluded or conspired with the defendant or its attorney, falsified documents, engaged in improper ex parte communications, suffered from a disability, or otherwise engaged in misconduct. Judicial – Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(D). For these reasons, this Complaint is DISMISSED.”

A copy of the original filing can be found here.