Adams v Judicial Council Sixth Circuit complaint 01894
Number of Pages:24
Date Created:September 14, 2017
Date Uploaded to the Library:September 15, 2017
Donate now to keep these documents public!
See Generated Text ∨
Autogenerated text from PDF
Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA THE HON. JOHN ADAMS Two South Main Street, Room 510 Akron, Ohio 44308-1813, Plaintiff, THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, c/o Circuit Executive 503 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse 100 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and THE HON. GUY COLE, his official capacity chair the Judicial Council the Sixth Circuit. 100 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, and COMMITTEE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE THE UNITED STATES, Attn: Office the General Counsel One Columbus Circle, Washington, 20544, and Civil Action No. -1- Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page THE HON. ANTHONY SCIRICA, his official capacity chair the Committee Judicial Conduct and Disability the Judicial Conference the United States, 601 Market Street Philadelphia, 19106, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTION RELIEF Plaintiff, The Honorable John Adams, brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants Judicial Council the Sixth Circuit, the Hon. Guy Cole, his official capacity chair the Judicial Council the Sixth Circuit, the Committee Judicial Conduct and Disability the Judicial Conference the United States, and the Hon. Anthony Scirica, his official capacity chair the Committee Judicial Conduct and Disability the Judicial Conference the United States. grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant U.S.C. 1331. Venue proper this district pursuant U.S.C. 1391(e). PARTIES Plaintiff John Adams federal judge the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Ohio. The Northern District Ohio lies within the territorial jurisdiction the U.S. Court Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Sixth Circuit Defendant Judicial Council the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council oversees the administration the federal courts the Sixth Circuit, including receiving and reviewing reports special committees charged with investigating complaints judicial misconduct -2- Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page and/or disability filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act 1980, U.S.C. 351364 the Act The Judicial Council derives its authority from sections 332 and 352-354 the Act and Rules 18-20 the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. Defendant Guy Cole, Jr. serves Chief Judge the Sixth Circuit and, that capacity, chair the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council. Chief Judge Cole being sued his official capacity chair the Judicial Council. Defendant Committee Judicial Conduct and Disability the Judicial Conference the United States the Review Committee standing committee established the Judicial Conference the United States the Judicial Conference review orders and actions the Judicial Councils the U.S. Circuit Courts Appeal regarding complaints against judges and judicial discipline under the Act. The Review Committee derives its authority from sections 331 and 357 the Act, and from Rule the Rules for JudicialConduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. Defendant Anthony Scirica serves the chair the Review Committee. Judge Scirica being sued his official capacity chair the Review Committee. STATEMENT FACTS Judge Adams was nominated President George Bush judgeship the United States District Court for the Northern District Ohio the District Court January 2003. was confirmed the United States Senate February 10, 2003 and received his commission February 12, 2003. Judge Adams chambers are Akron, Ohio. all relevant times, Judge Adams has been and sound physical and mental health. competently manages full docket cases and has sat designation the Sixth -3- Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page Circuit numerous occasions, including least occasions since 2012 and least occasions since approximately July 2008. 10. The District Court has seen dramatic increase Social Security disability appeals during Judge Adams tenure. Claimants seeking Social Security benefits have been plagued long delays every step the disability application process, and the District Court took steps address the problem. Because the District Court automatically assigns Social Security disability appeals magistrate judges for recommended decision, Judge Adams attempted address these delays creating deadlines for magistrates first informally and later the issuance scheduling orders, permitted under the District Court rules. Unlike other judges the District Court, Judge Adams typically does not assign other duties the magistrate judges. asked only that the magistrate judges timely address the appeals Social Security disability applicants. The magistrate judges resisted Judge Adams efforts require timely decisions, preferring deadlines all. Due Judge Adams efforts, the Court subsequently set goals for decisions Social Security disability appeals. 11. Judge Adams also firmly believes that, like all employees the federal government, judges should good stewards taxpayer dollars. spoke out numerous times about the District Court wasteful and inefficient use resources. For example, spoke out about the fact that the District Court was spending thousands dollars purchase iPads for judges and other court staff while simultaneously threatening cutbacks and furloughs for essential staff, such probation officers. questioned the need for magistrate judge Akron, position costing hundreds thousands dollars annually. also questioned reimbursing judges for travel expenses incurred attending ceremonial portrait unveilings their colleagues. -4- Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page 12. Judge Adams concerns regarding the use court resources and finances were ignored. While Judge Adams believes court governance important, concluded that his participation formal court governance was not useful productive because his views governance were routinely cast aside. still provided his views topics felt deserved his attention, however, and also remained involved the legal community participating the United States Sentencing Commission Annual National Seminar and teaching the University Akron School Law. continues serve routinely the District Court miscellaneous judge and presides over naturalization ceremonies. presently sits the Akron School Law Alumni Board. 13. February 2013, Judge Adams issued show cause order asking magistrate judge explain his failure issue timely decision Social Security appeal assigned Judge Adams. The timeliness decisions Social Security cases had been recurrent problem, and, result, was Judge Adams practice issue scheduling orders for Social Security appeals. the particular case hand, the claimant had waited nearly 5.5 years from the date her administrative claim for final decision. When the magistrate judge indicated the next business day that human error caused miscalculation the deadline, Judge Adams deemed the order satisfied and sealed the filings that same day, which meant the magistrate judge faced further consequences and one would able see the initial order the response. The matter was resolved and placed under seal within span hours. Because the case was Social Security appeal, the show cause order and response were not publicly available before they were sealed, but were only available the parties. 14. about February 15, 2013, four judges the District Court filed judicial complaint against Judge Adams. The complaint alleged that Judge Adams lacked authority -5- Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page issue the order and further alleged that the order constituted extreme, unwarranted, and unjustified abuse judicial discretion. The complaint also alleged that Judge Adams had strained relationship with the other judges the court and had withdrawn from participation the governance and social life the Court. The complaint did not attribute the show cause order alleged strained relationship and withdrawal any alleged disability other condition. 15. Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Alice Batchelder recused herself from the complaint, information and belief because her daughter had clerked for Judge Adams. February 22, 2013, Judge Danny Boggs, acting place Chief Judge Batchelder, appointed special committee the Special Committee investigate the complaint. 16. Judge Adams filed timely response the complaint March 2013. did not deny issuing the show cause order, but explained why had done and how discharged the order and placed both the order and response under seal within hours its issuance. also addressed the complainants concerns about his alleged strained relationship and withdrawal. 17. When requested the Special Committee appear for interview August 2013, Judge Adams appeared and answered the Special Committee questions. also attempted resolve the complaint informally offering withdraw the then-sealed order and related filings and agreeing attend judges meetings and any court committee meetings which the District Court chief judge might appoint him, among other measures. 18. the Fall 2013, the Special Committee demanded that Judge Adams undergo psychiatric evaluation part its investigation. The Special Committee identified specific reason for the request. 19. Judge Adams objected good faith the Special Committee demand, but nonetheless tried accommodate the Special Committee. November 2013, voluntarily -6- Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page underwent examination local, board certified psychiatrist, and January 2014, submitted report the examination the Special Committee. The report concluded that Judge Adams did not suffer from any diagnosable mental disorder. 20. When the Special Committee persisted its demand, Judge Adams agreed undergo further examination provided certain reasonable conditions were met. These included being provided specific information about the reasons for the examination, having input into the selection the mental health professional chosen perform the examination and the parameters the examination, and agreed-upon limitations any materials provided the mental health professional selected perform the examination. The Special Committee rejected every one Judge Adams conditions. 21. January and again February 2014, the Special Committee advised Judge Adams that, continued object undergoing examination, would seek expand the scope its investigation include whether suffered from disability and would order him submit compelled examination. 22. Judge Adams continued object undergoing compelled examination because, not only did the Special Committee refuse identify any specific reason for demanding compelled examination, also refused allow Judge Adams any input into the scope the examination the materials provided the mental health professional selected perform the examination. The Special Committee also rejected the report the examination Judge Adams underwent voluntarily. 23. May 24, 2014, the Special Committee made good its threat and asked Judge Boggs expand the scope the Special Committee investigation include whether -7- Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page Judge Adams suffers from mental disability. May 27, 2014, Judge Boggs granted the Special Committee request. 24. August 2014, the Special Committee directed Judge Adams provide [a]ll records pertaining any mental emotional treatment, counseling, evaluation diagnosis through the present and all records regarding any psychotropic medications (such mood stabilizers, anti-depressants, tranquilizers). Judge Adams objected the demand initially, citing personal privacy and the confidentiality medical information, but subsequently advised the Special Committee that had such records. 25. September 2014, the Special Committee directed Judge Adams travel approximately thirty miles from his Akron, Ohio chambers undergo three-hour battery psychological tests part evaluation performed unidentified forensic psychiatrist. Judge Adams again objected, citing medical privacy, the Special Committee refusal provide the basis for compelled examination, and the previously produced report the local, board certified psychiatrist concluding that Judge Adams did not suffer from any diagnosable mental disorder, among other objections. 26. December 2014, the Special Committee asked Judge Boggs expand the scope the Special Committee investigation second time include whether Judge Adams committed misconduct declining undergo the compelled examination. December 2014, Judge Boggs granted the Special Committee request. 27. was not until Judge Boggs expanded the scope the Special Committee investigation second time that Judge Adams was provided the identity the psychiatrist engaged the Special Committee perform the compelled psychiatric evaluation. The psychiatrist, Dr. Philip Resnick, was well-known Judge Adams had appointed Dr. -8- Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page Resnick serve expert least one case pending before him and Dr. Resnick served frequently court-appointed expert the District Court. 28. Unbeknownst Judge Adams, November 11, 2014, Dr. Resnick opined letter the Special Committee that materials provided him the Special Committee suggest significant personality traits may have contributed the current concerns about Judge Adams. Dr. Resnick letter did not assert that there was any basis suspect Judge Adams suffered from disability that rendered him unable discharge all the duties office, and the Special Committee later stipulated that never provided Dr. Resnick with the report the local, board certified psychiatrist who had evaluated Judge Adams November 2013. 29. hearing the complaint against Judge Adams, subsequently expanded, was scheduled for April 20-22, 2015. 30. the interim, Judge Adams voluntarily underwent second psychiatric examination, performed nationally-renowned psychiatrist and leading expert legal and ethical issues medicine and psychiatry. part this second examination, Judge Adams also underwent extensive psychological testing performed preeminent psychologist. This second examination led another conclusion that Judge Adams does not suffer from temporary permanent condition rendering him unable discharge the duties his office. 31. Under both the Act and the governing rules, Judge Adams had the right proper notice the charges against him, call witnesses any hearing, and request the issuance subpoenas. Both the Act and the governing rules also required the Special Committee proceedings investigative, not adversarial. -9- Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page 32. The April 2015 hearing was anything but investigative. was adversarial, not accusatorial and antagonistic towards Judge Adams. also was unfair. 33. the eve the hearing, the Special Committee produced exhibits and witness statements Judge Adams that sought introduce new, previously undisclosed allegations from long five and half years earlier. also rejected all eleven, pre-hearing document subpoenas and the single witness subpoena requested Judge Adams. 34. The Special Committee also did not identify the duties office allegedly affected the unidentified mental disability about which purportedly was concerned until after the April 2015 hearing began. While Judge Adams counsel was questioning witness the first day the hearing, the Special Committee informed him that the relevant duties for purposes the hearing were the duties referenced the Special Committee March 23, 2014 request Judge Boggs expand the scope the investigation include whether Judge Adams suffers from mental disability. The Special Committee had not provided Judge Adams with copy the March 23, 2014 request until exhibits and witness statements were exchanged the eve trial, and the Special Committee failed inform Judge Adams the time that the duties issue were the duties cited the request. The alleged duties included: (a) maintaining professional relationship with colleagues; (b) shouldering responsibilities member th[e] court; and (c) refraining from making unfounded and destructive attacks colleagues. The Special Committee has never identified the alleged mental disability about which purportedly concerned. 35. The Special Committee also excluded evidence from the two psychiatrists who examined Judge Adams and concluded that does not suffer from any type disability that renders him unable discharge the duties his office. Judge Adams had submitted two Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page witness statements and reports examination from the local, board certified psychiatrist who had examined him initially late 2013. Judge Adams also submitted summary expected testimony and the 70-page curriculum vitae the nationally renowned psychiatrist and leading expert legal and ethical issues medicine and psychiatry who examined him before the hearing. Judge Adams intended for the nationally renowned psychiatrist and expert testify and cross-examined the hearing. 36. The witness statements and reports, witness summary, and curriculum vitae were submitted within the Special Committee deadline for pre-hearing submissions, yet late the day the first day the three-day hearing, the Special Committee demanded Judge Adams provide, 4:00 p.m. the following day, information regarding any mental health evaluation Judge Adams may have received, including any and all information, reports, notes, communications, drafts, authorizations, invoices, and other information, whether digital form, computers, phones, portable devices the two psychiatrists and any other mental health experts that may have seen treated Judge Adams any time. practical matter, the midhearing demand was impossible satisfy. 37. When Judge Adams did not produce the records, the Special Committee excluded the witness statements and reports, witness summary, and live testimony. even went far state, [T]he Committee will ignore any statements made Judge Adams any statements made [counsel] that are suggestive that some mental health professional has suggested that there not serious psychological mental issue with him. 38. The conclusion the local, board certified psychiatrist set forth the excluded, initial report, which was already known the Special Committee because Judge Adams had produced the Special Committee early 2014, was follows: Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page opinion that Judge Adams does not suffer from diagnosable mental disorder. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual the American Psychiatric Association states that disorder may not diagnosed unless there evidence clinically significant distress impairment social, occupational other important areas functioning. [T]he behavior described court documents [the judicial complaint] while vexing other members the Court, does not constitute mental illness. The second, later report concluded: [Judge Adams] shows evidence disturbance mood, and says interested pursuing reconciliation process, but finds being compelled undergo psychological evaluation unacceptable the absence demonstrated inability perform assigned duties. His cognition intact and high intelligence. Insight and judgment are intact. this time, not feel that Judge Adams suffers from psychiatric disorder. Some individuals temperament may prove vexing those around them and cause some degree interpersonal estrangement but not the result mental illness. Indeed, the very traits that prove irritating others focus rules, procedure, and precedent; aloofness from others) are those that may essential officer the District Court. These traits however, not interfere with Judge Adams reason, intellect, grasp reality and not constitute mental illness. 39. The excluded witness summary from the nationally renowned psychiatrist and expert legal and ethical issues medicine and psychiatry stated, reasonable degree medical certainty, Judge Adams does not suffer from temporary permanent condition rendering him unable discharge the duties his office and Judge Adams had principled reasons for declining sit for psychological testing and psychiatric evaluation, directed the Special Committee. information and belief, would have testified this same effect had not been excluded. 40. The Special Committee also excluded the same ground the witness statement personal friend Judge Adams who also board certified psychiatrist. The excluded statement asserted: Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page board certified psychiatrist, having known Judge Adams many settings for greater than twelve years, can say that have never witnessed nor had reliable knowledge any interaction that suggests Judge Adams has any psychological pathology. can say with confidence that there evidence diagnosable DSM disorder. There evidence that has any form temporary permanent mental emotional condition that renders him unable perform the duties his judicial office. Exclusion this particular witness statement was especially egregious because, the witness had never formally evaluated treated Judge Adams, there were records produce. The witness could not have been excluded for any failure produce records. 41. Judge Adams also sought introduce witness statements from more than thirty individuals who have interacted with him daily basis for years, including court personnel and attorneys who have appeared before him regularly, and the live testimony least one judicial official. The Special Committee threatened the hearing that, Judge Adams submitted these individuals witness statements had them give live testimony, would call unspecified number unidentified witnesses testify against Judge Adams rebuttal. Neither the identities any such rebuttal witnesses nor the subject matter their testimony had been disclosed Judge Adams before after the April 2015 hearing since. Faced with the Special Committee threat, Judge Adams felt compelled not call these additional witnesses. 42. addition, the Special Committee questioning its own witnesses the April 2015 hearing was suggestive, often leading, and one-sided. contrast, its questioning Judge Adams was hostile and prosecutorial. One member the Special Committee even asked whether impeachment should considered. The Special Committee actions both before and during the hearing were not those neutral investigator. 43. Nonetheless, claim concern was made raised the April 2015 hearing that Judge Adams does not cannot maintain his full docket cases unable make Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page rulings. one the complainants acknowledged his testimony the hearing, That not involved here his handling his docket has been appropriate. Another judge testified that Judge Adams very bright judge. writes very good opinions. 44. July 10, 2015, the Special Committee issued its report and recommendations the Judicial Council. found Judge Adams committed misconduct issuing the February 2013 show cause order and refusing cooperate with the Special Committee investigation declining undergo the compelled psychiatric evaluation demanded the Special Committee. The Special Committee also found could not determine whether Judge Adams suffers from disability. recommended that Judge Adams publicly reprimanded, ordered undergo psychiatric examination psychiatrist selected the Special Committee, not assigned any new cases for period two years, and have his entire docket current cases transferred other judges, among other sanctions. also ordered that Judge Adams shall submit any treatment counseling deemed necessary the psychiatrist. Further, asserted that, should Judge Adams continue refuse undergo psychiatric examination, requested voluntarily retire. 45. August 17, 2017, Judge Adams filed timely response the Special Committee report and recommendations the Judicial Conference, and hearing the report and Judge Adams response was held September 10, 2015. 46. February 22, 2016, the Judicial Council issued Order and Memorandum that largely adopted the Special Committee recommendations. 47. The Judicial Council Order and Memorandum ordered that new cases shall assigned Judge Adams for period two years, and his present docket shall transferred other judges. Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page 48. The Judicial Council Order and Memorandum ordered that [t]he Special Investigating Committee shall maintain jurisdiction for two years ensure that Judge Adams does not engage additional inappropriate behavior involving magistrate judges, whether his official functions otherwise. 49. April 2016, Judge Adams filed timely petition for review the Judicial Council February 22, 2016 Order and Memorandum. 50. Memorandum Decision issued August 14, 2017, the Review Committee largely upheld the Judicial Council Order and Memorandum. affirmed the Judicial Council finding that Judge Adams actions relating the February 2013 show cause order constituted misconduct and upheld the Judicial Council public reprimand. also affirmed the Judicial Council finding that Judge Adams objection undergoing compelled psychiatric examination psychiatrist selected the Special Committee constituted misconduct, although ruling, acknowledged that was matter first impression under the Act. likewise affirmed the Judicial Council order that Judge Adams undergo the compelled examination and further ordered that shall submit any treatment counseling deemed necessary the psychiatrist. left untouched the Judicial Council statement that, [s]hould Judge Adams refuse undergo mental-health evaluation psychiatrist chosen the Special Investigating Committee, the Judicial Council intends request that Judge Adams voluntarily retire. 51. The Review Committee Memorandum Decision vacated the Judicial Counsel Order and Memorandum that new cases shall assigned Judge Adams for period two years, and his present docket shall transferred other judges, finding that the Judicial Council did not include its Order any specific findings regarding whether Judge Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page Adams conduct has adversely affected his ability discharge the adjudicative duties. But the Review Committee did not contest the legal propriety the Judicial Council order accompanied appropriate findings, holding that, while curtailment Judge Adams docket not supported the record exists this time [w]e cannot rule out the appropriateness such sanction should sufficient evidence establish Judge Adams incapacity. 52. The Review Committee also held that, should Judge Adams refuse submit the mental health examination ordered the Judicial Council and affirmed this Committee, sanctions for Judge Adams continued failure cooperate including the prohibition the assignment new cases temporary basis for time certain may warranted subject the Judicial Council sound discretion. 53. The Review Committee Memorandum Decision also affirmed the Judicial Council Order that the Special Committee retain jurisdiction for reasonable period time, not exceed two years, ensure Judge Adams ability discharge the duties office federal district court judge. 54. Although neither the Special Committee, nor the Judicial Council, nor the Review Committee ever made finding that Judge Adams show cause order was unlawful, opposed inappropriate unwarranted under the circumstances, the Judicial Council issued blanket order that such order issued Judge Adams with respect the work any the courts judges. 55. The Review Committee also ordered that, [i]n addition its consideration any examination results, the Special Committee may conduct further investigation into Judge Adams conduct the bench, including interviews with litigants, lawyers, and court staff. Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page ruling, the Review Committee effectively expanded the scope the investigation Judge Adams yet again. 56. Both the Judicial Council Order and Memorandum and the Review Committee Memorandum Decision were published August 14, 2017 the Review Committee website, resulting adverse news reports about Judge Adams and harming Judge Adams professional reputation. COUNT (Fifth Amendment Unconstitutional Vagueness the Act Disability Provision) 57. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 58. Plaintiff has obvious liberty interest the outcome any misconduct disability proceeding against him. also has obvious liberty interest not being subjected involuntary psychiatric examination and further liberty interest not being stigmatized having committed misconduct and having his mental health questioned, well having his status Article III judge altered ordering him undergo compelled psychiatric evaluation and subjecting him the continuing oversight the Special Committee, among the other provisions the Judicial Council Order and Memorandum. Under the Fifth Amendment the United States Constitution, Plaintiff cannot deprived his liberty interests without due process law. 59. The Act unconstitutionally vague and violates the Due Process Clause the Fifth Amendment because, inter alia, fails provide adequate notice what constitutes mental disability that renders judge unable discharge all the duties office. also unconstitutionally vague and violates the Due Process Clause because lacks minimal enforcement guidelines identifying when Article III judge may subject disability Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page investigation, and, accordingly, when Article III judge may disciplined for objecting good faith undergoing compelled psychiatric examination part investigation into whether suffers from disability rendering him unable discharge his duties. 60. Defendants enforcement the Act unconstitutionally vague disability provisions against Plaintiff has caused Plaintiff irreparable harm and will continue cause Plaintiff irreparable harm unless and until the Act declared unconstitutional and Defendants are enjoined from requiring Plaintiff undergo compelled psychiatric examination and disciplining Plaintiff for objecting good faith compelled psychiatric examination. 61. Plaintiff has adequate remedy law. COUNT (Ultra Vires, Unconstitutional Examinations) 62. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 63. Neither the Act nor the U.S. Constitution authorizes compelling Article III judge undergo psychiatric examination furtherance investigation into whether the judge suffers from mental physical disability that renders him unable discharge all the duties office. 64. Defendants have neither statutory nor constitutional power compel Plaintiff undergo involuntary psychiatric examination, the compelled examination Plaintiff ultra vires and unconstitutional, disciplining Plaintiff for objecting the examination. 65. Defendants ultra vires and unconstitutional acts have caused Plaintiff irreparable harm and will continue cause Plaintiff irreparable harm unless and until they are declared unconstitutional and Defendants are enjoined from requiring Plaintiff undergo compelled psychiatric examination and disciplining Plaintiff for objecting good faith undergoing compelled psychiatric examination. Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page 66. Plaintiff has adequate remedy law. COUNT III (Fifth Amendment Unconstitutional Vagueness the Act Investigative Authority) 67. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 68. The Act unconstitutionally vague the extent purports authorize compelled psychiatric examinations Article III judges. Section 353(c) the Act, which authorizes special committee conduct investigation extensive considers necessary, lacks minimal enforcement guidelines identifying the circumstances under which Article III judge may compelled undergo psychiatric examination and vests virtually complete discretion the hands special committee determine when examination may compelled. Consequently, the Act violates the due process protections the Fifth Amendment and impermissibly intrudes judicial independence. 69. Defendants enforcement the Act unconstitutionally vague investigative provision against Plaintiff has caused Plaintiff irreparable harm and will continue cause Plaintiff irreparable harm unless and until the Act declared unconstitutional and Defendants are enjoined from requiring Plaintiff undergo compelled psychiatric examination and disciplining Plaintiff for objecting good faith undergoing compelled psychiatric examination. 70. Plaintiff has adequate remedy law. COUNT (Fourth Amendment Unconstitutional Search) 71. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page 72. Plaintiff enjoys the right secure his person and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, guaranteed the Fourth Amendment the U.S. Constitution. 73. compelled psychiatric examination constitutes search and seizure for purposes the Fourth Amendment and therefore must satisfy minimum standards constitutional reasonableness lawful. 74. The Act violates the Fourth Amendment the extent authorizes compelled psychiatric examination Article III judge without warrant based probable cause and issued neutral judicial official demonstration constitutional reasonableness. 75. Defendants enforcement the unconstitutional Act against Plaintiff has caused Plaintiff irreparable harm and will continue cause Plaintiff irreparable harm unless and until the Act declared unconstitutional and Defendants are enjoined from requiring Plaintiff undergo compelled psychiatric examination and disciplining Plaintiff for objecting good faith undergoing compelled examination. 76. Plaintiff has adequate remedy law. COUNT (Fourth Amendment Applied Challenge) 77. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 78. Defendants lack either warrant issued probable cause neutral judicial official constitutionally reasonable basis for requiring Plaintiff submit involuntary psychiatric examination. Accordingly, compelling Plaintiff undergo involuntary psychiatric examination violates Plaintiff Fourth Amendment rights. 79. Plaintiff has been and will continue irreparably harmed unless and until Defendants violation his Fourth Amendment rights declared unconstitutional and Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page Defendants are enjoined from requiring Plaintiff undergo compelled psychiatric evaluation and disciplining Plaintiff for objecting good faith undergoing compelled examination. 80. Plaintiff has adequate remedy law. COUNT (Fifth Amendment Applied Due Process Violation) 81. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 82. Defendants determination that Plaintiff committed misconduct objecting good faith undergoing involuntary psychiatric examination and Defendants order requiring Plaintiff undergo compelled psychiatric examination violate Plaintiff Fifth Amendment right due process because, inter alia, (a) Plaintiff was not given proper notice the charges against him, including but not limited notice the duties office allegedly unable perform result the unidentified mental disability from which suspected suffering and the new allegations raised for the first time the eve the April 2015 hearing; (b) Plaintiff was denied the right call medical and lay witnesses the April 2015 hearing; and (c) the hearing was conducted adverse, accusatorial proceeding, not prosecution, not the investigative proceeding required the Act. 83. Plaintiff has been and will continue irreparably harmed unless and until Defendants violation his Fifth Amendment right due process declared unconstitutional and Defendants are enjoined from requiring Plaintiff undergo compelled psychiatric evaluation and disciplining Plaintiff for objecting good faith undergoing compelled examination. 84. Plaintiff has adequate remedy law. COUNT VII (Improper Removal, Violation Separation Powers) Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page 85. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs through fully stated herein. 86. The Constitution provides that Judges, both the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, stated Times, receive for their Services, Compensation, which shall not diminished during their Continuance Office. U.S. Const. art. III, The Constitution also provides that [t]he House Representatives shall have the sole Power Impeachment, and that [t]he Senate shall have the sole Power try all Impeachments. U.S. Const. art. light these provisions, executive judicial agency body may exercise, form substance, the impeachment power reserved the Constitution the House and Senate. Nor may any executive judicial agency body delegated the impeachment power reserved the Constitution the House and Senate. 87. Defendants orders and threats constitute attempt remove Plaintiff from office, without impeachment and violation the Constitution, substance not form, by, inter alia, (a) threatening transfer Plaintiff current cases and threatening forbid the assignment new cases him; (b) ordering Plaintiff endure unprecedented, unwarranted, and unconstitutional probationary period two years, during which the Special Committee authority over Plaintiff completely undefined and apparently unlimited; (c) forbidding Plaintiff, alone among all federal judges, from issuing particular kind order that has not been found unlawful, regardless any future unforeseen circumstances; (d) ordering Plaintiff undergo involuntary mental health examination and submit any required treatment, without sufficient basis for doing so, set forth this Complaint; and (e) ordering that the scope the investigation into Plaintiff conduct expanded, years after the initial complaint, include his conduct the bench, which was never questioned the hearing this matter, and encompass interviews with litigants, lawyers, and court staff. Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page 88. Defendants orders and threats, both individually and combination, were intended substantially burden and substantially burden Plaintiff ability serve Article III judge and carry out the constitutional duties his office and were intended compel Plaintiff retire. 89. The foregoing orders and threats constitute constructive impeachment violation the Constitution. 90. Plaintiff has been and will continue irreparably harmed unless and until the identified provisions are declared unconstitutional and Defendants are enjoined from any and all acts carrying out, giving effect to, furtherance these provisions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) declare the Act unconstitutional, either whole part; (2) declare any provisions the Judicial Council Order and Memorandum, the Review Committee Memorandum Decision, requiring Plaintiff undergo compelled psychiatric examination, disciplined for objecting good faith undergoing compelled examination, accept any compelled medical treatment, unconstitutional; (3) declare any provisions the Judicial Council Order and Memorandum, the Review Committee Memorandum Decision, authorizing limitation Plaintiff docket, further investigation into Plaintiff conduct the bench, monitoring Plaintiff conduct for two years, other special restrictions his actions federal judge, unconstitutional; (4) enjoin enforcement the foregoing unconstitutional provisions; (5) order the termination any further investigation Plaintiff; (6) award Plaintiff reasonable Case 1:17-cv-01894 Document Filed 09/14/17 Page attorney fees and costs; and (7) grant Plaintiff such other relief the Court deems just and proper. Dated: September 14, 2017 Respectfully submitted, JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. /s/ Paul Orfanedes Paul Orfanedes D.C. Bar No. 429716 /s/ Robert Popper Robert Popper D.C. Bar No. 1023592 425 Third Street SW, Suite 800 Washington, 20024 (202) 646-5172 Counsel for Plaintiff