-1- NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1957

___________ J ANI CE HAAGE NS E N,

A p p e llan t, v. SU PR E M E C O U R T O F PE N N SY L V A N I A and the fol l ow i ng m ember s of the Cou rt , i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s ; Hon . RO NA LD D . CA STI LLE, Ch i e f J u s t i c e ; Ho n . T HOMAS G. S AYL OR , J u s t i c e ; Ho n . J . M I CH AE L E AKI N, J us t i c e ; H on . M A X BA ER , J us t i c e ; H on . D EB RA TO D D , J us t i c e ; H on . SEA M U S P. M C C A FFE R Y , J us t i ce; and H on. J A N E C U T L E R G R E E N SPA N , J us t i ce; D I SC I PL I N A R Y B O A R D O F T H E SU PR E M E C O U R T O F PE N N SY L V A N I A and the foll ow i ng personn el of the D i sci pli naryB oard, i nd i vidual l yand i n o ffi ci al capac i t i es; M A T T H E W F . B U R G E R , P an el C h airm an ; L E O N A R D J. M A R S IC O , P an el M em b er; P H IL IP B . H A R T , JR ., P a n e l M e m b e r; P A U L J. K IL L IO N , C h ief D isc ip lin a ryC o u n se l; P A U L J. B U R G O Y N E , D ep u tyC h ief D isci p li n aryC o u n sel; S A M U E L F . N A P O L I,

D i s c i p l i n a ry C o u n s e l a n d E L A I N E B I X L E R , S e c r e t a ry, A pp el l ees.

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt forthe W e ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 08- 01560) D istri ct Ju d g e: T erren ce F . M cV erry Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

on M ay18, 2010 B efore: F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.T hes e hi s t or i cal fac t s ar e dr aw n fr om the A ppel l ant ’ s br i ef, the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i on 1 in th is c a s e , H

a a g e n se n v . Su

p re m e C o u rt o

f P e n n sy lva n ia , et a l. , 651 F. Supp. 2d 422 ( 2009) , and the opi ni on i n I n r e D is ci

pl i ne of Jani ce S. H

aagens en , N o. 09- m c- 310, 2010 W L 8 8 7 3 6 6 (W .D . P a . M a r. 8 , 2 0 1 0 ), in w h ich th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ent er ed a r eci pr ocal or deradmi ni s tr at i vel ys us pendi ng H aage ns en fr om the pr act i ce of la w b e f o re th a t c o u rt . -2-

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t11, 2010 )

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: A t t orneyJ ani ce H aage ns en fi l ed s ui ti n fede r al di s tr i ctcourtchal l engi ng d isci p li n aryac ti o n take n ag ains t her b ythe S u p rem e C o u rto f P en n sy lvan ia. H aa g en sen ’s C om pl ai ntcont es t ed the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C ourt ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o di s ci pl i ne herfor heract i ons i n a fe der al court . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtadopt ed the R eportand R e c o m m e n d a tio n o f

a M a g istra te J u d g e , w h o h a d f o u n d , inte r a lia, th a t P lain tiff f a iled to s t at e a c aus e of a ct i on. B ecaus e w e fi nd the appe al pat ent l yfr i vol ous and agr ee w i th the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on , w e affirm the d i sm i ssal of H aagen sen’s cl ai m s. I. B ecaus e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e onl ydi s cus s the fa ct s and pr ocee di ngs t o the ext entnece s s aryforr es ol ut i on of thi s cas e. O n N ovember15, 2006, 1 the O ffi ce of

D i s ci pl i naryC ouns el forthe C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a fi l ed a Pet i t i on forD i s ci pl i ne aga i ns tH aage ns en bas ed on herconducti n G r i ne v. C oom bs , 214-3-

F .R .D . 3 1 2 (W .D . P a . 2 0 0 3 ), a ff’d , 98 F. A pp’ x 178 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . A ccor di ng t o the di s ci pl i narycompl ai ntand ourow n r evi ew of the ca s e, as det ai l ed i n G r i ne v. C oom bs , 1 1 2 F . A p p ’x 8 3 0 , 8 3 2 -33 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), H aa g en sen ref u sed to co m p lyw ith co u rto rde rs f ro m b o th th e D istric t C o u rt a n d th is C o u rt d u rin g th e c o u rse o f lit ig a tio n , fa iled to pr ovi de orr eques tdi s covery , m ade no r es pons e t o a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , fi l ed i m pr operappea l s and pet i t i ons forcert i or ar i ( m os tof w hi ch w er e deni ed forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on) , and w i l l ful l ydel ay ed the ca s e foroverei ghty ear s . W e or der ed hert o pay a p p e lle e ’s a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s in th e a m o u n t o f

$ 4 4 ,9 3 6 . Id
. a t 8 3 4 . T h e P eti ti o n fo r D isci p li n e a ll eg ed that H aa g en sen h ad v iolated P en n sy lvan ia’s R ul es of Pr ofes s i onal C onduct . Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng befor e the D i s ci pl i naryB oar d and s u b s e q u e n t a p p e a l to th e P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt , a p ri v a te re p ri m a n d w a s im p o s e d . T h e D isc ip lin a ryB o a rd su b se q u e n tlyre c o m m e n d e d p u b lic c e n su re . T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C ourtr ej ect ed thi s r ecomm endat i on and ent er ed an or dert o s how caus e w hy H aage ns en s houl d notbe s us pended f orone y earand one da y . H aage ns en neve r r es ponded and on February17, 2010 the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C ourtent er ed an or der s us pendi ng H aage ns en forthatper i od. T hr oughoutthes e pr ocee di ngs , H aage ns en cont ended thatthe D i s ci pl i naryB oar d and the Supr eme C ourtof Penns y l vani a l acke d ju ri s d ic tio n to e n f

o rc e s a n c tio n s b a s e d u p o n h e r b e h a v io r i n f e d e ra l c o u rt . O n N ovember10, 2008, fol l ow i ng the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C ourt ’ s i m pos i t i on o f a p riv a te r e p rim a n d , H a a g e n se n f iled a n a c tio n in th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia agai ns tthe Supr eme C ourtand othernamed D efe ndant s , i n w hi ch s he r ai s ed aA tthe t i m e s he fi l ed herC om pl ai nt , H aage ns en had be en di r ect ed t o paythe cos t s of 2 i nves t i gat i ng and pr os ecut i ng the di s ci pl i narym att er , buthad noty etbeen s us pended. H aage ns en dee m s i ts uffi ci entt o ci t e the Supr emacyC l aus e of the U ni t ed St at es 3 C o n stitu tio n , U .S . C o n st. a rt. V I, cl. 2 , as h e r so le s u p p o rt f o r a ra n g e o f

sp e c if ic p ro p o sitio n s. T h e se in c lu d e “ [ f ]e d e ra l co u rts a re v e ste d w ith o rig in a l an d a p p e llate ju risd ictio n o v e r a tto rn e yd isc ip lin a ryp ro c e e d in g s in iti a ted w ith in th e e x c lu siv e a u th o rity of the fe der al j udi ci ary , ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at10) , “the fe der al i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng fede r al offi ci al s i n the per form ance of thei rfede r al dut i es , ” (Id
. at 14 ), an d that “[ a] state co u rt m os tdefi ni t el yl acks j ur i s di ct i on t o i ndepende nt l yand de novo s anct i on an att orneyfor th e a l l e g e d f

r i v o l i tyo f

a P e t i t i o n f

o rCe r t i o r a r i p r e s e n t e d t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our t , ” (Id
. a t 1 6 ). -4- “ ju risd ictio n a l ch a llen g e ” to th e D e f e n d a n ts’ a c tio n s. H e r n o v e l ar g u m e n t es se n tially 2 b o ils d o w n to th e c laim th a t, by dis c ip lin in g h e r f o r h e r a c tio n s in a f

e d e ra l co u rt, th e sta te di s ci pl i naryboar d vi ol at ed the Supr emacyC l aus e. O n hertheory , forw hi ch s he ci t es no 3
s uppor t i ng cas e l aw , onl ythe fe der al court s can puni s h herforherbehavi ori n a fe der al court . H aage ns en’ s C om pl ai nti ncl udes caus es of ac t i on al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of ( 1) her F i rs tA m end m ent r i gh t s of access t o the cou rt s and f ree s peech , (2) her propertyi nter est in e m p lo ym e n t an d h e r p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts, (3 ) h e r F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h t to b e f re e o f u n re a so n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d se izu re s, (4 ) h e r rig h t to p riv a c y , an d , (5 ) h e r rig h t to s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s . T h e D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n o f th e M a g istra te Ju d g e , w h o h a d f

o u n d th a t P lain tiff

f a iled to id e n tifya c o n f

lict b e tw e e n f

e d e ra l an d sta te r egul at i ons , norhad s he al l eged thatthe Penns y l vani a Supr eme C ourts us pended he rfr om p ra c tice in f

e d e ra l co u rt. A c c o rd in g ly , the c o u rt f o u n d th a t P lain tiff

f a iled to sta te a c laim upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. H ow ever , even ha d a caus e of a ct i on been pl ed, the M a g istra te J u d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t n u m e ro u s im m u n ityd o c trin e s a p p lied . T h e M a g istra teIn th eir m o ti o n to b e e x cu sed fro m fil ing a b ri ef , the D ef en d an ts st ated that all claim s are 4 b a rr e d b yd o c tr in e s in c lu d in g , in te r a lia , f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im , R ooker

- Feldm an , j udi ci al i m m uni ty , quas i
-

j udi ci al i m m uni ty , and pr os ecut or i al i m m uni ty , the baron i nj unct i ve and d e c la ra to ry re lie f

f o r j u d ic ia l a c tio n s , a n d E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity. T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r H a a g e n se n ’s c laim s p u rsu a n t to 5 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . -5- J udge al s o ci t ed ampl e author i tyforthe pr opos i t i on thata s t at e courtcan s anct i on an a tto rn e yf

o r c o n d u c t in f

e d e ra l c o u rt . See, e. g. , G a dda v . A sh c ro ft , 3 7 7 F .3 d 9 3 4 , 9 4 4 (9 th C i r . 2004) ( r ej ect i ng as w i thoutm er i tan att orney ’ s ar gum entthatSupr eme C ourtof C a lifo rn ia la c k e d ju risd ictio n to d isb a r h im b a se d o n c o n d u c t in f e d e ra l co u rts); In re D e n n is , 188 P. 3d 1, 13- 14 ( K an. 2008) ( hol di ng thatK ans as Supr eme C ourtpos s es s ed ju ri s d ic tio n to d is c ip lin e a tto rn e yf o r c o n d u c t in f

e d e ra l c o u rt ). O n Sept ember29, 2009, a pane l of thi s C ourtfi l ed an or dergr ant i ng the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o be exc us ed fr om fi l i ng a br i ef. T her eaf t er , w e deni ed 4 H aage ns en’ s m ot i on t o s t aythe A dm i ni s tr at i ve Sus pens i on O r derand R ul e t o Show C a u se O rd e r o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt. 5 II. I n herappea l , H aage ns en cha l l enges the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on and i n part i cul ar its re jec tio n o f

h e r S u p re m a c yC lau se a rg u m e n t an d h e r a lleg a tio n th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia j udi ci aryr et al i at ed aga i ns therforexer ci s i ng herFi r s tA m endmentr i ght s of appe al i n a f e d e ra l f o ru m . W e f

in d H a a g e n se n ’s c o n ten tio n s to b e c o m p lete lyw ith o u t m e rit an d w ill aff i rm forthe r eas ons out l i ned i n the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s thor ough R eportand R ecomm endat i on.R u le 15 (a) w as a m en d ed ef fe cti v e D ec em b er 1 , 2 0 0 9 , af ter th e re leva n t D istri ct C o u rt 6 o r d e r s a n d Ha a g e n s e n ’ s a tt e mp tt o a me n d . Th e a me n d e d v e r s i o n o f Ru l e 1 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B) a d d e d l a n g u a g e th a tt e rm i n a t e d th e r i g h tt o a m e n d o n c e a s a m a t t e ro f c o u r s e “ 2 1 d a ys a f te r t h e s e rv ic e o f

a m o tio n u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b ), ( e ), o r ( f ).” H aage ns en ar gues thatbecaus e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi d noti ncl ude l anguage 7 decl ar i ng the ca s e w as cl os ed ordi s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce, i tdi d notcons t i tut e a f i nal j udgm ent . W e r ej ectthi s ar gum ent . A di s m i s s al , “exc eptone forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, i m pr opervenue, orfai l ur e t o j oi n a partyunderR ul e 19” c ons t i tut es an “a dj udi cat i on on th e m e rits.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (b ); s ee Al s t on v. P arker , 3 6 3 F .3 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). “ T h e c las sic d e f

in iti o n o f a ‘f in a l d e c isio n ’ is o n e th a t ‘e n d s th e lit ig a tio n o n th e m e rits and l eave s nothi ng forthe courtt o do butexec ut e the j udgm ent . ’ ” Mor t on I nt ern. , I nc. v. A
. E
. Stal ey M

f g. C o. , 4 6 0 F . 3 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). T he or deron appea l i n Fl etcher

- H ar l ee Corp. , w hi ch w e pl ai nl ycons i der ed t o be a f in a l ju d g m e n t, i n c lu d e d n o n e o f th e lan g u a g e H a a g e n se n f in d s n e c e ss a ry . It m e re ly g ra n te d th e D e f

e n d a n t’ s R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n . Se e Fletc h e r-Ha rle e C o rp . v. P o te -6- H a a g e n se n a lso c laim s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yd e n y in g h e r th e rig h t to f ile an amended compl ai nt , pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 15( a) . U nderthe ver s i on of R ul e 15( a) i n eff ectatthe t i m e, a partyw as perm i t t ed t o amend a pl eadi ng on c e “ a s a matt e rof

c ou r s e ” pr i ort o s e rvi c e of a r e s po ns i ve pl e a di ng . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 5 (a ) (2 0 0 8 ) (a m e n d e d 2 0 0 9 ). A lth o u g h H a a g e n se n is c o rre c t th a t a m o tio n to d ism iss is 6 nota r es pons i ve pl eadi ng forthe purpos es of R ul e 15( a) , s he fa i l s t o r ecogni ze thatan amendm enti s al l ow ed onl y“up t o the poi ntatw hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant s the mot i on t o di s m i s s and ent er s fi nal j udgm ent . ” Fletc h e r-Ha rle e C o rp . v. P o te C o n c re te C ontr actors , I

nc. , 4 8 2 F .3 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); see al so Kau f f m an v. Moss , 420 F. 2d 12 70 , 12 76 (3d C i r. 19 70 ) ( “[S ]i nce judg m ent has been en t ered on the m oti on t o d i sm i ss, appel l antno l ongerhas the r i ghtt o amend hi s compl ai ntas of cour s e. ”) . H aage ns en att empt ed t o fi l e herA m ended Com pl ai nton M ar ch 27, 2009, l ong aft erthe D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed the M ot i on t o D i s m i s s on M ar ch 3, 2009. A ft erthe entryof a j udgm ent 7C oncr ete C ontr actors , I nc. , 4 2 1 F .S u p p .2 d 8 3 1 , 8 3 4 -3 5 (D .N .J . 2 0 0 6 ). M o re o v e r, alth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g th e m o tio n to d ism iss d id notexpl i ci t l ys t at e thatdi s m i s s al w as w i th pr ej udi ce, w e not e thatthe D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on expr es s l yr eques t ed di s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce. H aage ns en, i n s eeki ng t o amend, fi l ed w hat the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeemed a “ne ar l yi dent i cal A m ended Com pl ai nt . ” ( A pp. at24. ) T he D i s tr i ctC ourtamended i t s or i gi nal or dergr ant i ng the M ot i on t o D i s m i s s t o cl ar i fythat the ac t i on w as di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce. I tthen di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce a s m ootthe A m ended Com pl ai ntand the M ot i on forE m er gencyT empora ryR es tr ai ni ng O r derfi l ed w ith it. -7- d ism iss in g a c o m p lain t, am e n d m e n t m a yb e so u g h t o n lyth ro u g h F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 9 (e ) a n d 6 0 (b ). I d. T o the ext entH aage ns en cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng her C o m p lain t w ith p re

ju d ice a n d sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted h e r le a v e to a m e n d , w e f in d th is cont ent i on unavai l i ng. O urpr ece dents t at es thata di s tr i ctcourtm us tal l ow a cur at i ve amendm entw hen a c om pl ai nti s vul ner abl e t o R ul e 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s al “unl es s an amendm entw oul d be i nequi t abl e orfut i l e. ” P hi l l i ps v. C ount

y of A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 2 2 4 , 2 3 6 (3 d . 2 0 0 8 ); s ee al s o G r ays on v. Mayvi ew Stat e H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 108 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A lth o u g h the D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to n o te th e f u ti li tyo f H aa g en sen ’s pr opos ed amendm ent , ourow n r evi ew of herl egal cl ai m s and the s ubs t ance of the p ro p o s e d A m e n d e d C o m p la in t c o n f ir m s th a t a n a m e n d m e n t w o u ld h a v e b e e n f u tile . H aage ns en s i m pl yl acks a cogni zabl e l egal cl ai m as no confl i ctexi s t s betw een the fe der al and s t at e r egul at i ons governi ng att orneyconductand di s ci pl i ne. T hi s i s notthe s ortof defi ci encythatcoul d be cur ed byamendm ent . M or eover , the part i es agai ns tw hom H aage ns en has fi l ed s ui tar e, as the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on car eful l ydel i neat ed, cover ed bya r ange of i m m uni tydoctr i nes . T he fut i l i tyof-8-

H aage ns en’ s s ought
- aft eramendm enti s evi dentand the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a m e n d m e n t w a s n o t e rr o r. H aage ns en’ s conductbefor e thi s C our tand other s conce rns us . I n addi t i on t o her s us pens i on fr om the barof the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a, s he has r ece i ved
r eci pr ocal di s ci pl i ne i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. A s epar at e ca s e i s pendi ng b e f o re th e T h ir d C ir c u it’ s S ta n d in g C o m m itte e o n A tto rn e yD is c ip lin e , I n R e: Jani ce H aagens en , C iv . A . N o . 1 0 -8 0 1 3 . H aage ns en’ s m annerof pr act i ci ng l aw has been de s cr i bed as “vexa t i ous , ” G r i ne , 2 1 4 F .R .D . a t 3 6 9 , a n d h e r c o n d u c t in p u rs u in g th is a p p e a l a m p ly ev id e n c e s th is . Fol l ow i ng the pane l ’ s deci s i on nott o gr antor al ar gum enti n thi s m att er , s he fi l ed an “Em er gencyM ot i on t o R es t or e herR i ghtt o Pr es entO r al A r gum ent . ” H aage ns en cont ended thatthe C ourtvi ol at ed Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 34, w hi ch d isc u ss e s w h e n o ra l ar g u m e n t is p ro p e r. A c c o rd in g to H a a g e n se n , the C ler k o f C o u rt, i n advi s i ng the part i es thatthe ca s e w oul d be s ubm i t t ed on the br i efs , “r el i [ed] on hear s ay and cl os ed- doori nt ernal oper at i ng pr ocedur e t o i nform A ppel l antthatherr i ghtt o pr es ent or al ar gum enthas been t erm i nat ed. ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s E m er gencyM ot . ¶ 8. ) R ul e 34 does
n o t s ta te th a t a p a n e l m u s t p la c e o n re c o rd its re a s o n f o r d e n y in g o ra l a rg u m e n t. M or eover , the rul e s peci fi cal l ypr ovi des forthe cl erk t o advi s e part i es r egar di ng w hether or al ar gum entw i l l be s chedul ed. H aage ns en pr ovi des no bas i s forherbol d i ns i nuat i on thatthe dec i s i on nott o s chedul e or al ar gum entw as the pr oductof nef ar i ous back- r oom d e a lin g s , ra th e r t h a n th e s e lf -e v id e n t c o n c lu s io n th a t h e r c a s e d id n o t m e ri t a rg u m e n t.-9-

W e fi nd no m or e per s uas i ve H aage ns en’ s cont ent i on, w hi ch r el i es on ouror der e x c u sin g th e A p p e llee s f ro m f ili n g a b rie f

, tha t th is “ c a se c a n n o t b e su b m itt e d , as sta ted in the C l erk’ s l ett er , ‘ on the br i efs , ’ becaus e onl yone br i ef ( byA ppel l ant ) i s befor e the C our t . ” (Id
. ¶ 9. ) T hi s ar gum entm oves an al r eadyfr i vol ous cas e i nt o the r eal m of the f a rc ic a l. T h e C o u rt is a lso tro u b led b yth e in a p p ro p ria te la n g u a g e u se d b yH a a g e n se n in addr es s i ng thi s C ourtand r efe rr i ng t o m ember s of thi s panel . I n a M ot i on forR ecus al of J udge N y gaar d s he al l eged thatJ udge N y gaar d “gr os s l ycorrupt ed the r ecor d” i n a r el at ed cas e and thathi s “i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng fr om obj ect i ve i ns pect i on thi s corrupt i on of the fe d era l r ec o rd d isqu ali fies h im as a jud g e o n the m erit s p an el co n tem p lat ing A p p ell an t’ s cl ai m s agai nstst at e cou rtj ud ges. ” (M ot. for R ecusal ¶ 6.) S uch basel ess al l egati on s, d ire c ted a t a s in g le m e m b e r o f a p a n e l an d re ly in g o n th e lan g u a g e o f a n u n f a v o ra b le deci s i on, ar e r efl ect i ve of the undi s ci pl i ned and unpr ofes s i onal m anneri n w hi ch H aage ns en appe ar s t o pr act i ce l aw . H aage ns en’ s Pet i t i on forR ehea r i ng i n G r i ne v. C o lb u rn ’s A ir C o n d iti o n in ga n d R e frig e ra tio n , et a l. , C i v. A . N o. 09- 3775, pr ovi des furtherevi dence of H aage ns en’ s i nappr opr i at e ad homi nem at t acks . I n thatPet i t i on, H a a g e n se n c o n ten d s th a t Ju d g e N y g a a rd , the a u th o r o f o u r d e c isio n in th a t ca se , ch o se to aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s j udgm ent“bec aus e he be l i eves thatfede r al j udges ar e above the l aw , and oughtt o be abl e t o w r i t e or der s w hi ch ar e nots ubj ectt o r evi ew . ” I d. , A ppel l ant ’ s Pet . forR ehea r i ng, at9. Fi ndi ng norm al typefa ce i ns uffi ci ent , H aage ns en-10-

pr ocee ds t o char ge J udge N y gaar d w i th “goi ng out s i de the r ecor d, and off the r es ervat i on, W I T H A V E N G E A N C E . ” (Id
. at 12 . (em p h asis in o ri g inal)). Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC our t . W e al s o r efe r H aage ns en’ s behavi ori n thi s cas e t o the C our t ’ s St andi ng C om m i t t ee on A t t orney D is c ip lin e , w h ic h is a lr e a d yc o n s id e ri n g w h e th e r t o s u s p e n d h e r i n th is C o u rt . See R u le 4 .2 , T h irdC irc u it R u les o

f A tto rn e y D isc ip lin a ry E n

fo rc e m e n t.