FOR PUBLICATION

JUDICIAL COUNCIL

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE COMPLAINT OF 

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 

No. 22-90006 

ORDER

Filed November 15, 2023 

ORDER

MURGUIA, Chief Judge: 

Complainant, a pro se litigant, has filed a complaint of 

judicial misconduct against a district judge. Review of this 

complaint is governed by the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and 

Judicial-Disability Proceedings (“Judicial-Conduct Rules”), 

the federal statutes addressing judicial conduct and 

disability, 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq., and relevant prior 

decisions of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council. In 

accordance with these authorities, the names of the 

complainant and the subject judge shall not be disclosed in 

this order. See Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(g)(2). 
2 IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

The Judicial-Conduct Rules provide a remedy if a federal 

judge “has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective 

and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” 

28 U.S.C. § 351(a). A chief judge may dismiss a complaint 

if, following review, he or she finds it is not cognizable 

under the statute, is directly related to the merits of a decision 

or procedural ruling, or is frivolous or lacks sufficient 

evidence to raise an inference of misconduct. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 352(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iii). Judicial misconduct proceedings are 

not a substitute for the normal appellate review process, and 

may not be used to seek reversal of a judge’s decision, to 

obtain a new trial, or to request reassignment to a different 

judge. 

This misconduct complaint arises out of an attorney 

disciplinary matter. In the misconduct complaint, the 

complainant alleges that the district judge “made a gross 

error in his decision to affirm the Bar’s suspension” and that 

the district judge refused to consider evidence. These 

allegations are related to the merits and must be dismissed 

on that ground. See 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii); In re 

Complaint of Jud. Misconduct, 838 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. Jud. 

Council 2016) (dismissing allegations that a district judge 

and magistrate judge made various improper rulings as 

merits related); Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(B). 

Complainant also alleges that the district judge violated 

his due process rights by improperly acting as a prosecutor 

in lieu of the State Bar. A review of the record reveals that 

the disciplinary proceedings were conducted pursuant to the 

local rules of the district court and the district judge 

explained that the district court did not have appellate 

jurisdiction over the State Bar’s decisions. Initiating

reciprocal attorney disciplinary proceedings is not improper. 

See In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding 
IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT 3 

the district court's imposition of reciprocal attorney 

discipline proceedings based on a state's disciplinary 

adjudication was not an abuse of discretion); see also 9th Cir. 

R. 46-2(c). Because complainant provides no objectively 

verifiable evidence of misconduct in this matter, this 

allegation must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Judicial-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(D).

DISMISSED.