The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council disclose this week that a Petition for Review in Case No. 04-22-90114 has been dismissed on August 31, 2022.
The case is styled as ‘In the Matter of a Judicial Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 351 ‘ with case number #32219615.
The Petition for Review relates to the judicial complaint brought by a complainant against a district judge alleging that the subject judge allowed the prosecutors to file false reports with the USMS, knowing it was wrong; that the subject judge failed to stop the trial when a witness gave a prejudicial and inflammatory testimony; the subject judge’s transcribed meeting with defense counsel was an improper ex parte communication. The complainant generally alleges that the case is full of racism, that there were improper comments made by the subject judge at sentencing and, a miscarriage of justice occurred when he was sentenced for a crime he didn’t commit.
According to the Memorandum and Order:
“Complainant was indicted on multiple felony charges. At the request of prosecutors, the United States Marshals Service (USMS) imposed restrictions during pretrial confinement that prohibited complainant from communicating with anyone other than his attorney. A federal magistrate judge denied complainant’s motion to lift the restrictions, and the subject district judge denied complainant’s motion for reconsideration. “
Chief Judge, Roger L. Gregory of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in its Memorandum and Order, dismissed the complaint as merits-related and lacking in evidentiary support, stating among others:
“Claims that are “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling” or “lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred” are not subject to review through a complaint of judicial misconduct. . . The procedure that has been established to consider misconduct complaints “is not designed as a substitute for, or supplement to, appeals or motions for reconsideration. . .It would be “entirely contrary” to the purpose of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act “to use a misconduct proceeding to obtain redress for—or even criticism of—the merits of a decision with which a litigant or misconduct complainant disagrees.”
Consequently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council, on August 31, 2022, upon consideration of the Judicial Complaint, record materials, Memorandum and Order, and the instant petition, denied the complainant’s Petition for Review.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.