Opinion ID: 794463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Conference's Jurisdiction

Text: 52 There can be no question that the Chief Circuit Judge — and the Council in not correcting her error — did not follow the statute when the Chief Circuit Judge failed to appoint a special committee under Section 353. When issues are reasonably in dispute, such an appointment is mandatory, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 352-353, and there are at least two such issues in this case. 53 The first disputed issue relates to the circumstances of the contacts between the debtor and the District Judge. This involves not only the letter described by the debtor's lawyer but also the District Judge's own statement to the Council. In that, the District Judge himself stated that, based on a conversation that was not shared with other parties to the bankruptcy proceeding, he withdrew the bankruptcy reference and stayed the state court eviction because he deemed the debtor's representation in the state court to be deficient. On the second go-around, both the Chief Circuit Judge and the Council majority avoided the issues raised by this statement by not mentioning it. 54 The second disputed issue arises from the brief filed on the District Judge's behalf. It argued that a regularly scheduled meeting between a judge and a probationer is not an improper ex parte contact even though a separate legal action is discussed in the absence of other parties to that action. As to this issue, neither the Chief Circuit Judge nor the Council expressed an opinion, a result consistent with not mentioning the District Judge's own statement. In doing so, however, they implied that the District Judge's statement was irrelevant because such contact is not improper. 55 The absence of a special committee has left the record in this matter something of a black box. My colleagues determine that the Conference lacks jurisdiction because a special committee was never appointed. However, there can hardly be a dispute regarding whether such a committee was required. The claim of impropriety in the District Judge's withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference and stay of the state court action based on a conversation with one party to the bankruptcy proceeding (witnessed at best only by a probation officer) clearly cannot be described a lacking any factual foundation or . . . conclusively refuted by objective evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(B). Indeed, when the Judicial Council first remanded this to the Chief Circuit Judge, it stated explicitly that the complaint was non-frivolous and substantiated by the District Judge's own version of events. In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 03-89037, Order at 6 (9th Cir. Jud. Council Dec. 18, 2003). This alone was more than sufficient to call for a special committee under Section 353. 56 Upon the Council's review of the Chief Circuit Judge's second dismissal, it declined to upset [the] factual finding[s], In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 425 F.3d at 1181, of the Chief Circuit Judge even though she was explicitly barred by statute from making findings of disputed fact, 28 U.S.C. § 352(a)(2). And a claim that judicial action was taken as a result of an ex parte contact is not corrected by a promise to provide better explanations of such actions in the future. I cannot agree that these very errors deprive the Conference of all power to review this proceeding. 57 First, the labels used by subordinate tribunals do not conclusively determine the jurisdiction of appellate tribunals. In such circumstances, appellate tribunals determine their jurisdiction by looking beyond the form of the proceedings to their substance. See, e.g., Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212, 1221 (10th Cir.2003) ([I]n considering whether a judgment is `final' under § 1291, the label used to describe the judicial demand is not controlling, meaning we analyze the substance of the district court's decision, not its label or form.) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Birmingham Fire Fighters Ass'n 117 v. Jefferson County, 280 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir.2002) ([W]e are not governed by the district court's own characterization of the order as an `interpretation' or `clarification,' as distinguished from a `modification.'); LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P. v. Worsham, 185 F.3d 61, 64 (2d Cir.1999) ([A] district court cannot render a non-final judgment final simply by so stating.); Gautreaux v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 178 F.3d 951, 958 (7th Cir.1999) ([T]his court must look beyond the `injunction' label of the order to see if jurisdiction is proper [under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)].); Sierra Club v. Marsh, 907 F.2d 210, 213 (1st Cir.1990) (In appraising whether appellate jurisdiction was triggered pursuant to section 1292(a)(1), we believe we should take a functional approach, looking not to the form of the district court's order but to its actual effect.); Spath v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 728 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1984) (substance must prevail over nomenclature in determining appealability); see also 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2962 (2d ed. 1995) ([A] district court may not avoid immediate review of its determination [under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1)] simply by failing to characterize or label its decision as one denying or granting injunctive relief.). That mode of analysis is applicable here. 58 Second, there is good reason to understand the statute to vest the Conference with jurisdiction to determine whether use of the summary procedure was proper or a special committee was required. Conference review has two purposes, neither of which is needed in frivolous or truly corrected cases. The first purpose is to ensure procedural and substantive regularity in judicial misconduct cases. The second is to ensure that uniform national standards are applied. Denial of review in the present matter thwarts both purposes. 59 With regard to ensuring procedural and substantive regularity, denial of review means that chief circuit judges and circuit judicial councils are free to disregard statutory requirements. In fact, by disregarding those requirements, they may escape review of their decisions. Were this a case in which a judge had been publicly admonished by a chief circuit judge, upheld by the relevant council, in a Section 352 proceeding, the admonishment under Section 352 would be a clear violation of the statute, and surely the Conference would reasonably believe that it had the power to force resort to the proper statutory procedures. Nevertheless, the Committee's rationale would preclude review. 60 With regard to uniform national standards, the majority's position is seriously flawed at two levels. First, there can now be very different uses of Sections 352 and 353, not only between circuits but also within circuits from one chief circuit judge to the next. Second, denial of review can lead to inconsistent treatment of similar conduct depending on the circuit involved and the procedural course followed by various chief judges and judicial councils. In the present matter, the District Judge has admitted to a conversation with one party to a bankruptcy proceeding in the absence of other parties and to taking actions in the proceedings beneficial to the party to the conversation and detrimental to another. He claims that the conversation was not an improper ex parte contact because it was in the course of a probation supervision. The Chief Circuit Judge and Judicial Council have implicitly agreed. Whether such conduct is improper should be the subject of a national rule, rather than determined circuit by circuit. Again, if a judge had been admonished in a Section 352 proceeding on the basis of conduct found blameless in other circuits, the judge ought to have a right to have his or her conduct reviewed on the basis of consistent national standards. If so, then complainants should have the same right. 61 Third, review by the Conference adds an important measure of public confidence. The judicial misconduct procedure is a self-regulatory one. It is self-regulatory at the request of the judiciary in a legitimate effort to preserve judicial independence. A self-regulatory procedure suffers from the weakness that many observers will be suspicious that complainants against judges will be disfavored. The Committee's decision in this case can only fuel such suspicions. 62 The present matter involves a complaint with factual support including an admission of facts by the District Judge but with a claim of no impropriety. The required statutory procedure was not followed. The complaint was dismissed without any discussion by the Chief Circuit Judge or the Council majority of the facts admitted by the District Judge accused of an improper ex parte contact. The admitted facts would be regarded by some, if not most, professional observers as establishing just such a contact. The Committee rules that it has no power to review the Council's decision because the statutory procedures were not followed by the Chief Circuit Judge and Council. The disposition of the present matter is therefore not a confidence builder.