On April 3, 2023, the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit dismissed a complaint, with case no. 11-23-90036, alleging bias, impartiality, and misconduct against a U.S. District Judge.

According to the court document, in February 2021, the complainant and a co-defendant were indicted on drug-related charges. The complainant pleaded guilty to one charge but later requested to represent himself, resulting in changes in legal representation. The complainant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming inadequate legal counsel. A psychological evaluation determined the complainant was mentally incompetent and should receive treatment. In October 2022, the complainant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his continued detention and the delays in the competency proceedings. In January 2023, the judge denied the petition, stating it lacked exceptional circumstances. The case is ongoing.

The complainant accused the subject judge of bias and prejudice, claiming that the judge assisted in selective and prejudicial prosecution to secure an unfair and unconstitutional criminal conviction.

The filing states:

“He alleges that, in June 2021, the Subject Judge accepted involuntary plea agreements and allowed his codefendant to receive a favorable plea agreement that was not offered to him.

Complainant alleges that, at the hearing in September 2021, the Subject Judge allowed the government to conceal misconduct in connection with his codefendant’s sentencing, attempted to sentence him on an unconstitutional conviction, twice interrupted him “in an effort to tailor the record,” ignored his request to proceed pro se, deprived him of his right to proceed pro se, misinterpreted his request to proceed pro se with “assistant counsel and investigative services,” misinformed him about what“investigative services” meant, and ignored his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.”

In addition, the complainant also alleged that the judge insulted him and that the judge engaged in misconduct.

The fling continues:

“. . . the Subject Judge engaged in misconduct by allowingComplainant’snew counsel to make an appearance on his behalf without first introducing himself to Complainant. He alleges that in February 2022 the Subject Judge allowed his attorney to obstruct his microphone to prevent him from making a statement and conducted a “‘Prejudicial’ premortem analysis on” him. He contends that in March 2022, the Subject Judge engaged in misconduct by failing to notify the chief district judge of a “Notice of Complaint” he had sent to the Subject Judge. He alleges that in April 2022 the Subject Judge neglected to address the Notice of Complaint, allowed his counsel to continue “intentionally misrepresenting” him, and “gambled” on his competency before making a decision on his motion to withdraw his plea.”

Lastly, the complainant asserted that the subject judge deliberately neglected to promptly review his habeas petition, suggesting that this action was motivated by a desire to safeguard the government’s reputation and maintain the complainant’s indefinite detention.

According to the court, the complaint lacks a sufficient basis to support a finding of misconduct. Regarding the complainant’s allegations concerning the subject judge’s official actions, rulings, findings, and orders in the aforementioned case, the complainant’s allegations directly relate to the merits of the subject judge’s decisions or procedural rulings.

Moreover, the complainant’s remaining claims rely on allegations that lack substantial evidence to support an inference that the subject judge was biased or impartial, acted with an illicit or improper motive, treated Complainant in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner, or otherwise engaged in misconduct. Thus, the complaint was dismissed.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.