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