Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03022/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03022-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FOUR DIRECTIONS, ET AL., 

Petitioners, 

v. 

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND 

DISABILITY OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., 

Respondents. 

Case No. 14-cv-03022-YGR 

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON FIRST 

AMENDED PETITION AND MOTION TO 

DISMISS FIRST AMENDED PETITION

Petitioners Four Directions, Indian People’s Action, Sara Plains Feather, and Clifford Bird 

In Ground (“Petitioners”) filed their First Amended Pre-Complaint Petition to Preserve Evidence 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27(a)(1) on November 14, 2014. (Dkt. No. 34, 

“FAP”.) Respondents have objected to the FAP and moved to dismiss it. (Dkt. No. 35.) 

Having reviewed and considered and the current set of filings, including the FAP, 

additional issues require briefing. Petitioners now include litigants who suggest they are preparing 

to challenge certain rulings of Judge Cebull based upon alleged bias. The Court notes that in its 

Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Petitioners have limited their petition to the preservation, not 

production, of Judge Cebull's emails only and no other documents from the investigation. The 

Court considers only that limited scope of the Petition. 

The parties shall each address the following issues in written briefs not to exceed ten (10) 

pages by Monday, February 2, 2015. A reply shall be allowed not to exceed five (5) pages by 

Friday, February 6, 2015 at 12:00 p.m. noon: 

(1) whether, assuming one of the petitioners here filed some motion or petition for relief 

regarding a case that went to decision before Judge Cebull, there would be some mechanism for 

discovery, in that proceeding, of his non-case related e-mails previously uncovered in the 

investigation of the misconduct complaints against Judge Cebull; 

(2) what avenue (if any) for relief, through the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council or otherwise, 

Case 4:14-cv-03022-YGR Document 43 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

is available to persons who believe that a decision made by Judge Cebull should be reviewed in 

light of the decisions of the Committee; and 

(3) for Petitioners: given that (i) Rule 27(a)(A) includes has a temporal requirement and (ii) 

the emails at issue were made public last January 2014, identify the reasons any expected action 

either has not been brought or cannot be brought now, bearing in mind that the documents 

identified for preservation are already generally known to the Petitioners and cannot be used to 

satisfy a petitioner’s obligations under Rule 11. 

The Court ORDERS that the parties appear for oral argument on the FAP and Motion to 

Dismiss on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, at 2:00p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 26, 2015 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-03022-YGR Document 43 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 2