FOR PUBLICATION

JUDICIAL COUNCIL

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE COMPLAINT  Nos. 08-89000,

OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 08-90159,

08-90160,

08-90161,

08-90162,

08-90163,

08-90164,

08-90165,

08-90166,

08-90167,

08-90168,  08-90169,

08-90223,

08-90224,

08-90225,

08-90226,

08-90227,

08-90228,

08-90229

and

08-90230

ORDER 

Filed September 30, 2010

Before: Procter Hug, Jr., Sidney R. Thomas,

M. Margaret McKeown, Ronald M. Gould and

Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges, Audrey B. Collins,

Irma E. Gonzalez and Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judges,

and Terry J. Hatter, Jr. and Robert H. Whaley,

District Judges.

16623
ORDER

Pursuant to Article V of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and

Judicial-Disability Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 352(c),

complainant has filed a petition for review of the order of Circuit Judge Reinhardt,1

 entered on November 25, 2009, dismissing his complaints against nineteen federal judges. 

We have carefully reviewed the record and the authorities

cited by Circuit Judge Reinhardt in the order of dismissal. We

conclude there is no basis for overturning the order of dismissal. In his petition for review, complainant contends that

the Ninth Circuit had no jurisdiction over his misconduct

complaints, and that the Judicial Council should have transferred them to another circuit. This Circuit did not transfer his

complaints pursuant to Judicial-Conduct Rule 25, nor were

the complaints reassigned pursuant to Judicial-Conduct Rule

26. The complaints, which name 19 federal judges and various claims were not sufficiently related to a complaint transferred to another circuit, which named just one judge and

included a narrower scope of claims. Thus, the complaints

were properly decided in this Circuit and should not have

been transferred. 

Further, complainant argues that Circuit Judge Reinhardt

should have recused himself from considering these misconduct complaints. A judge’s decision to hear a case rather than

to recuse is merits-related and the Judicial Council, an administrative body, does not review the correctness of a judge’s

decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); see also Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980:

A Report to the Chief Justice: Standard 2 for Assessing Compliance with the Act at pp. 145-46 (2006). Further, complainant has not provided evidence to support his bias allegations.

See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii). 

1The complaints were assigned to Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351(c). 

16624 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
For the reasons stated by Circuit Judge Reinhardt and based

upon the controlling authority cited in support thereof, we

affirm.

On January 25, 2010, the Judicial Council issued an Order

to Show Cause requiring complainant, an attorney, to explain

why sanctions were not warranted for filing frivolous claims,

in part as an admitted litigation tactic. As stated in the Judicial

Council’s Order, complainant knew that “sanctions may be

warranted if a complaint is either frivolous or is submitted for

an improper purpose.” See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 08-89000+ at p. 2 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2010)

(citing See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 550 F.3d

769 (9th Cir. 2008)). In complainant’s response, he continues

to challenge this Circuit’s jurisdiction over these matters, reiterates his allegations of misconduct, and otherwise inadequately responds to the show cause order. 

An attorney filing a frivolous misconduct complaint diminishes the effectiveness of our system of justice, and also may

have an adverse effect on the random assignment of judges

who may feel compelled to recuse even in light of unfounded

allegations. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 550

F.3d 76 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2008). We conclude that both

a public reprimand and a pre-filing order are appropriate sanctions for this abuse of the misconduct complaint procedure.

This order is not grounded on nor do we take a position on

whether complainant may have violated 28 U.S.C. § 360. This

published order will constitute a public reprimand of Cyrus

Sanai in the form of a published opinion in West’s Federal

Reporter. The Clerk shall also serve this order on the State

Bar of California, 1149 S. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA,

90015-2219, to consider appropriate disciplinary action. 

Further, we hereby direct the Clerk to enter the following

pre-filing review order:

IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 16625
Pre-Filing Review Order

(1) This pre-filing review order shall apply to all misconduct complaints or petitions for review filed by complainant

that relate to this matter. 

(2) Any future misconduct complaint filed by complainant

shall comply with the requirements of the Rules for JudicialConduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, and shall contain the following sentence in capital letters “THIS COMPLAINT/PETITION IS FILED SUBJECT TO PRE-FILING

REVIEW ORDER Nos. 08-89000, 08-90159, 08-90160, 08-

90161, 08-90162, 08-90163, 08-90164, 08-90165, 08-90166,

08-90167, 08-90168, 08-90169, 08-90223, 08-90224, 08-

90225, 08-90226, 08-90227, 08-90228, 08-90229 and 08-

90230” in the caption of the complaint or petition. 

(3) If complainant’s future misconduct complaints are submitted in compliance with this order, the Clerk shall lodge the

complaint or petition and accompanying documents. The

Clerk shall not file the complaint or petition until the complainant’s submission is reviewed and a determination is

made as to whether it merits further review and should be

filed.

(4) This pre-filing review order shall remain in effect until

further order of the Judicial Council. Complainant may, no

earlier than September 1, 2012, petition the court to lift this

pre-filing review order, setting forth the reasons why the order

should be lifted.

Complainant’s failure to comply with the order shall result

in any new complaints that he seeks to file being dismissed

or not being filed and other sanctions being levied, as the

Council may deem appropriate.

16626 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT