F OR P UB L I CAT I ON J U D IC IA L C O U N C IL O F T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT I N R E COM PL AI NT OF J UD I CI AL MI S CO ND UC T N os . 10- 90078 a nd 11- 90083 O R D ER KOZ I NS KI , C hi ef

Judg e: A pro se l i t i gantal l eges thata m agi stra t e j ud ge “ un l aw ful l y grant ed [ d e f e n d a n ts ’] r e q u e s t f

o rd is m is s a l o f

a ll d e f e n d a n ts a n da ll c au s e s o f a c tio n ” in s e v e r a l o f

h is c iv il c a s e s a n dth a t ad is tr ic t ju d g e “ru b b e r - s ta m p e d ” th o s e d e c is io n s . T hese char ges r el at e di re ct l y t o the m er i t s of the j ud ges’ rul i ng s and m ustthere fore b e d is m is s e d . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) ; Ju d ic ia l- C o n d u c t R u le 11 (c )( 1)(B ); In re C harge of Jud i ci al M i sc on du ct , 68 5 F . 2d 12 26 , 12 27 (9th C i r. Jud. C ou nci l 19 82 ). C om pl ai nantfurther a l l eges thatthe j ud ges w er e c orruptbecause they never

“ ad j u d g [ed ] an yth i n g ag ai n st[d efen d an t s] , ” b u tro u t i n el y “ d i sm i ss[ed ] an y p ro se c om pl a i ntf

orvi ol a t i on of

c i vi l r i ght s §1983 a ga i ns tof f i c e r s . ” B uta dve r s e rul i ngs do notpr ove bi a s orc ons pi r a c y . S e e I n r e C om pl a i ntof Judi c i a l M i s c onduc t , 583 F . 3d 598, 598 ( 9th C i r . Jud. C ounc i l 2009) . B e c aus e c om pl a i na ntpr e s e nt e d no e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o rtth e s e a l l e g a t i o n s , th e ymu s tb e d i s mi s s e d . Se e 2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED MA Y26 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSpage 2

§ 3 52 (b)( 1)(A )( i i i ); Judi ci al -C on du ctR ul e 11(c)( 1)(D ); In re C om pl ai ntof Judi ci al M i s c onduc t , 569 F . 3d 1093, 1093 ( 9th C i r . Jud. C ounc i l 2009) . C o m p l ai n an tal so al l eg es th atth e j u d g es “ h av e b een fo rced o n al l [o f h i s] c a s e s , e v e n w h e n h e r e q u e s te da s s ig n m e n t to d if f e r e n t ju d g e s .” B u t, u n d e rN in th C i r c ui tpr e c e de nt , al i t i ga ntha s “ no r i ghtt o a nypa rt i c ul a rpr oc e dur e f orthe se l ec t i on of the j ud ge, ” s o l on g as the j ud ge i s c ho se n “ i n a m anner fr ee fr om bi as orthe de s i r e t o i nf

l ue nc e the out c om e of

the pr oc e e di ngs . ” C ruz v. A bba t e , 812 F . 2d 571, 574 ( 9th C i r . 1987) . H e r e , c om pl a i na ntof f e r e d no e vi de nc e tha tthe j ud ges w er e e ven i nv ol ved i n ass i gn i ng hi s c as es , m uch l es s thatthey a ct ed w i th an i m prop erm ot i ve. T he m er e f ac tthatthe sam e j ud ge pres i ded o ver m ul t i pl e c as es f i l e d byc om pl a i na nti s notpr oof of m i s c onduc t . B e c aus e c om pl a i na ntof f e r s no other e vi dence t o sup po rtthi s c l ai m , thi s c harge m ustbe di sm i ss ed. S ee In re C o m p la in t o f

Ju d ic ia l M is c o n d u c t, 6 3 2 F .3 da t 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 8 8 ( 9 th C ir . Ju d . C o u n c il 20 11 ). C om pl a i na ntm a ke s va r i ous othe ra l l e ga t i ons a ga i ns tthe j udge s , i nc l udi ng tha tthe di s tr i c tj udge “ doc t or e d” am ot i on “ byc r os s i ng ove r‘ A dde ndum ’ a nd s u p e r im p o s in g ‘R e p lyin O p p o s itio n ’ in h a n d w r itin g ,” a n dth a t th e m a g is tr a te j ud ge “ i ss ued an i ncre di bl y open l egal advi ce t o [defendant s] ” and “ i nt i m i dat [e d co m p lain an t] to n o t p er sistin g w ith h is m o ti o n s.” A re v iew o f c o m p lain an t’ s exhi bi t s r evea l s no evi dence thatthe j ud ges di d anythi ng i m prop er . S ee In repage 3

C o m p la in t o f

Ju d ic ia l M is c o n d u c t, 6 3 0 F .3 d9 6 8 , 9 6 9

– 7 0 ( 9 th C ir . Ju d . C o u n c il 2 0 1 0 ). B ecau se th ere i s n o ev i d en ce th atm i sco n d u cto ccu rred , th ese cl ai m s m u st b e d is m is s e d . S e e I n r e C o m p la in t o f J u d ic ia l M is c o n d u c t, 6 3 2 F .3 da t 1 2 8 8 . F i nal l y, com pl ai nantas se rt s that“ [t ] here ar e t oo m any a l l egat i on s and proo fs a ga i ns t[ the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ] , tha ti tw oul d be ve rys upe r f l ous [ s i c ] a nd p e r f u n c t o ryi f

th i s c o m p l a i n twe r e d e c i d e do n th i s f o rm a n da l l e g a t i o n s a l o n e . ” He th erefo re d i rect s u s t o o rd er tran scri p t s fro m o n e o f h i s u n d erl yi n g cases, b ecau se

“ w h en su b st an t i at ed[th e ch arg es] w o u l drep resen ta scan d al o u s m i sco n d u ctb y a j udi c i a l of

f i c e ra nd as t a i n t o the . . . C ourt . ” B utnow he r e i n c om pl a i na nt ’ s s i xpage com pl ai ntor t en-page suppl em entdo es he expl ai n w hatspec i fi c m i sc on du ct tho se transcr i pt s w ou l d reveal , or w here w i thi n the transcr i pt s the al l eged m i sc on du ctcan b e f

ou nd . C f. In re C om pl ai ntof Judi ci al M i sc on du ct , 63 0 F . 3d at 9 6 9

– 7 0 . Wi th o u tp o i n t i n g t o a n y th i n g s p e c i f i c , c o m p l a i n a n t ’ s s u g g e s t i o n th a twe order transcr i pt s i sn’ tproo f of m i sc on du ct , bu tra ther an i nv i t at i on for the Judi ci al C ounc i l t o c onduc taf

i s hi ng e xpe di t i on. A s w e ’ ve pr e vi ous l ye xpl a i ne d, “ va gue a c c u s a tio n s a n dc o n v o lu te dd e m a n d s d o n ’t s a tis f yc o m p la in a n t’s o b lig a tio n to prov i de ob

j ec t i ve evi dence of m i sc on du ct , ” s o thi s c l ai m m ustbe di sm i ss ed. In re C o m p la in t o f

Ju d ic ia l M is c o n d u c t, 5 8 4 F .3 d1 2 3 0 , 1 2 3 1 ( 9 th C ir . Ju d . C o u n c il 2 0 0 9 ) . DI S MI S S E D.