On Wednesday, August 24, 2022, the Judicial Council of the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint, with case number #01-20-90013, against a district judge in the First Circuit.
The complainant, a pro se litigant, alleged judicial misconduct in connection with his civil case over which the district judge presided. The complainant challenged the judge’s order to remand his case to the defendant’s federal agency and asserted that the defendant “played a legal game” with the judge. The complainant also alleged that the clerk’s office staff delayed his appeal of the subject judge’s order and did not answer his phone calls.
First Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard dismissed the complaint as frivolous and as not cognizable. Chief Judge Howard explained that the complainant provided no information to support his claims and that the conduct of court staff in exercising their administrative duties would not, in any event, be attributable to the judge or otherwise appropriate for resolution by means of the judicial misconduct process.
The complainant filed a petition for review requesting that Chief Judge Howard’s order of dismissal be “reversed” because the Chief Judge did not see the complainant’s side of the story. The complainant reasserted that the “case should go forward, not backward” and that there should be a simpler way to solve his case. The complainant asserted that the defendant should be ordered to pay the money owed to him and reiterated his request for a jury trial. He also stated that he has no “protection” from the government because he is “not rich” and does not have a lawyer to represent him.
In its order, the Judicial Council of the First Circuit stated that the petition for review is meritless because the petitioner provided no information to support the allegation that Chief Judge Howard improperly dismissed the misconduct complaint. Contrarily, the dismissal ruling shows that Chief Judge Howard accurately and completely investigated the petitioner’s proceeding records as well as the misconduct allegation before dismissing it.
The order reads:
“The record remains devoid of evidence that the subject judge was improperly motivated in presiding over petitioner’s case. Therefore, Chief Judge Howard properly dismissed the misconduct complaint as frivolous and as not cognizable…
For the reasons stated, the order of dismissal issued in Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 01-20-90013 is affirmed.”
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
