Page 8 - Rules Governing Judicial Misconduct

Basic HTML Version

4
Chapter II: Review by Chief Judge of a Complaint
RULE 4. REVIEW BY THE CHIEF JUDGE
(a) Procedure for review by Chief Judge.
When a complaint in proper form is sent to the Chief Judge by the Clerk of
the Court or identified under section 351(b), the Chief Judge will review the complaint (see Rule 18(a)). In determining
what action to take, the Chief Judge may conduct a limited inquiry for the purpose of determining (1) whether
appropriate corrective action has been or can be taken without the necessity for a formal investigation, (2) whether
intervening events have made action on the complaint unnecessary, and (3) whether the facts stated in the complaint
are either plainly untrue or are incapable of being established through investigation. For this purpose, the Chief Judge
may request the judge whose conduct is complained of to file a written response to the complaint. The Chief Judge or
his or her designee may also communicate orally or in writing with the complainant, the judge whose conduct is
complained of, and other persons who may have knowledge of the matter, and may review any transcripts or other
relevant documents. The Chief Judge will not undertake to make findings of fact about any matter that, after an initial
limited inquiry, remains reasonably in dispute.
(b) Actions available to Chief Judge.
After reviewing a complaint under subsection (a), the Chief Judge, by written order
stating his or her reasons, may:
(1) dismiss the complaint if the Chief Judge finds –
(A) that the claimed conduct, even if the claim is true, is not "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the business of the courts" and does not indicate a mental or physical disability resulting
in inability to discharge the duties of office; or
(B) that the complaint is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling; or
(C) that the complaint is frivolous, a term that includes making charges that are wholly unsupported; or
(D) that a limited inquiry conducted under subsection (a) demonstrates that the allegations in the complaint lack
any factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective evidence; or
(E) that the Court does not have jurisdiction; or
(F)
that, under chapter 16, the complaint is otherwise not appropriate for consideration; or
(2) conclude the proceeding if the Chief Judge determines that appropriate action has been taken to remedy the problem
raised by the complaint or that action on the complaint is no longer necessary because of intervening events; or
(3) appoint a special committee, constituted as provided in Rule 9, to investigate the complaint and make
recommendations to the judicial council. However, ordinarily a special committee will not be appointed until the
judge complained about has been invited to respond to the complaint and has been allowed a reasonable time to do
so. In the discretion of the Chief Judge, a complaint or complaints about more than one judge, growing out of the
same course of conduct, may be joined or severed.
If the Chief Judge dismisses the complaint under paragraph (1)(E), the Chief Judge, based on information in the complaint,
may (i) make notification as described in Rule 14(f)(6) and/or (ii) recommend to the Board of Judges of the Court systemic
corrective action (that is, action not directed against the judge complained about in particular) to ensure the effective and
expeditious administration of the business of the Court. See also Rule 20(a).
(c) Notice of Chief Judge's action.
(1) If the Chief Judge issues an order dismissing the complaint or concluding the proceeding on the basis of corrective
action taken or because intervening events have made action on the complaint unnecessary, the Chief Judge will