FOR PUBLICATION

JUDICIAL COUNCIL

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE COMPLAINT  Nos. 10-90078

OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT and  11-90083

ORDER 

Filed May 26, 2011

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: 

A pro se litigant alleges that a magistrate judge “unlawfully

granted [defendants’] request for dismissal of all defendants

and all causes of action” in several of his civil cases and that

a district judge “rubber-stamped” those decisions. These

charges relate directly to the merits of the judges’ rulings and

must therefore be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii);

Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(B); In re Charge of Judicial

Misconduct, 685 F.2d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. Jud. Council

1982).

Complainant further alleges that the judges were corrupt

because they never “adjudg[ed] anything against [defendants],” but routinely “dismiss[ed] any pro se complaint for

violation of civil rights § 1983 against officers.” But adverse

rulings do not prove bias or conspiracy. See In re Complaint

of Judicial Misconduct, 583 F.3d 598, 598 (9th Cir. Jud.

Council 2009). Because complainant presented no evidence to

support these allegations, they must be dismissed.

See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Judicial-Conduct Rule

7283
11(c)(1)(D); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 569

F.3d 1093, 1093 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2009).

Complainant also alleges that the judges “have been forced

on all [of his] cases, even when he requested assignment to

different judges.” But, under Ninth Circuit precedent, a litigant has “no right to any particular procedure for the selection

of the judge,” so long as the judge is chosen “in a manner free

from bias or the desire to influence the outcome of the proceedings.” Cruz v. Abbate, 812 F.2d 571, 574 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, complainant offered no evidence that the judges were

even involved in assigning his cases, much less that they

acted with an improper motive. The mere fact that the same

judge presided over multiple cases filed by complainant is not

proof of misconduct. Because complainant offers no other

evidence to support this claim, this charge must be dismissed.

See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 632 F.3d at 1287,

1288 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2011).

Complainant makes various other allegations against the

judges, including that the district judge “doctored” a motion

“by crossing over ‘Addendum’ and superimposing ‘Reply in

Opposition’ in handwriting,” and that the magistrate judge

“issued an incredibly open legal advice to [defendants]” and

“intimidat[ed complainant] to not persisting with his

motions.” A review of complainant’s exhibits reveals no evidence that the judges did anything improper. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 630 F.3d 968, 969-70 (9th Cir.

Jud. Council 2010). Because there is no evidence that misconduct occurred, these claims must be dismissed. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 632 F.3d at 1288. 

Finally, complainant asserts that “[t]here are too many allegations and proofs against [the magistrate judge], that it

would be very superflous [sic] and perfunctory if this complaint were decided on this form and allegations alone.” He

therefore directs us to order transcripts from one of his underlying cases, because “when substantiated [the charges] would

7284 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
represent a scandalous misconduct by a judicial officer and a

stain to the . . . Court.” But nowhere in complainant’s sixpage complaint or ten-page supplement does he explain what

specific misconduct those transcripts would reveal, or where

within the transcripts the alleged misconduct can be found.

Cf. In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 630 F.3d at

969-70. Without pointing to anything specific, complainant’s

suggestion that we order transcripts isn’t proof of misconduct,

but rather an invitation for the Judicial Council to conduct a

fishing expedition. As we’ve previously explained, “vague

accusations and convoluted demands don’t satisfy complainant’s obligation to provide objective evidence of misconduct,”

so this claim must be dismissed. In re Complaint of Judicial

Misconduct, 584 F.3d 1230, 1231 (9th Cir. Jud. Council

2009). 

DISMISSED.

IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 7285