JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE

 

 

SECOND CIRCUIT 


In re 

COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT Docket Nos. 18?90204-jm
18-90205-jm
18?90206-jm
18-90210-jm



 

Before: The Judicial Council of the Second Circuit.

 

In October 2018, four complaints of judicial misconduct were ?led against
a then inactive senior circuitijudge of another circuit, pursuant to the Judicial 7
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. 351?364 (the and the
Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (effective March
12, 2019) (the ?Rules?), available at 
/1udicia1 conduct and disability rules effective march 12 12019 0.pdf. The
complaints allege, on the basis of a news article, that the then-inactive senior
circuit judge may have committed misconduct relating to tax and financial
transactions, mostly in the 19805 and 19905. On November 29, 2018, in response

to a request from the chief circuit judge of the home cirCuit, the Chief Justice

transferred the complaints, and any pending or new complaints relating to the
same subject matter, to the Second Circuit Judicial Council. See Rule 26.

The judge named in the complaint had been an inactive senior judge who
did not hear any cases or have chambers or chambers staff, and has since
relinquished the office of United States senior judge by retiring, that is, resigning,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 371(5).

The Act is concernedwithindividuals who currently exercise the powers?of
the office of federal judge. Its emphasis is on correction of conditions that 
interfere with the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the
courts. The Act defines ?judge? as "a circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy
judge, or magistrate judge.? 28 U.S.C. 351(d)(1). Because the now former judge
. fully resigned the office of United States circuit judge, and can no longer perform
any judicial duties, the former judge does not fall within the scope of persons
who can be investigated under the Act.

Accordingly, the Judicial Council must ?conclude the proceeding because
[of] . . . intervening events . . . Rule see also Rule 11 cmt. (identifying
?resignation from judicial office? as such an intervening event); In re Complaint of

Judicial Misconduct, 10 F.3d 99, 99-100 (3d Cir. Jud. Council 1993) (?Inasmuch as a

judge who retired under 28 U.S.C. 371(a) by giving up his or her judicial office
is no longer exercising judicial duties, he or she can no longer prejudice the
?effective and expeditious administration of the business of the In re
Charge of Judicial Misconduct, No. 17-90013, at (2d Cir. Jud. Council March 7,
2017) (?Because the subject judge resigned from office . . . ?action on the
complaint is no longer necessary because of intervening events.? (quoting 28
U.S.C. In re charge of Judicial Misconduct, No. 13-90089, at *1 (2d Cir.
Jud. Council April 15, 2014) (same); In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 91 F.3d 90,
91 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 1996) (?Because he is no longer a judicial of?cer, he is no
longer subject to the judicial disciplinary procedures . . . . The district judge?s
voluntary retirement under Section 371(a) is sufficient to render the charges and
related issues moot?); In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 782 F.2d 181, 181 (9th
Cir. Jud. Council 1986) (?When the subject of the complaint is no longer a judicial
officer, he is beyond the reach of these procedures and the remedies they
prescribe?).

In concluding these proceedings, the Judicial Council does not reach the

merits of the complaints.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above-referenced complaint proceedings

are CONCLUDED.

Karen Grengilton, Circuit Executive 

and Secretary to the Judicial Council

Signed: Aprili, 2019
New York, New York