Page 1
Ninth Circuit Dismisses Misconduct Complaint Against Chief Judge
Complainant Cites Newspaper Editorial in Support of Allegations Against Murguia
By Kimber Cooley, Associate Editor
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered that a complaint of judicial misconduct filed against Chief Judge Mary Murguia be dismissed for lack of factual support.
The complaint alleges that Murguia is in dereliction of her duties as chief judge for failing to open a misconduct investigation into whether District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California was aware that after proclaiming on Nov. 17, 2021 that Lang Westlake Village attorney Marina Lang was in contempt of court, she was kept in custody for hours, while her hands and legs were manacled.
In lieu of submitting a statement of facts underlying the allegations of misconduct, the complainant submitted an editorial published by the METNEWS on May 31, 2024, describing the contempt proceedings and asserting that the chief judge “fail[ed] to instigate an investigation, as a circuit’s chief judge is statutorily charged with doing, in response to a credible allegation of misconduct on the part of a judicial officer in the circuit.”
Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw was assigned the complaint after Murguia recused herself.
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. §1351 et seq., provides that action against a federal judge may be supported if the jurist “has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” Sec. 1351(b) provides:
“In the interests of the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and on the basis of information available to the chief judge of the circuit, the chief judge may, by written order stating reasons therefor, identify a complaint for purposes of this chapter and thereby dispense with filing of a written complaint.”
The editorial notes that Murguia identified a complaint of her own accord under subdivision (b) into Senior District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California—after reports surfaced that Benitez placed a defendant’s 13-year-old daughter in handcuffs on Feb. 13, 2023 when the father expressed concerns that she was following in his footsteps—but failed to initiate an inquiry into Lang’s allegations.
Lang recounted in papers she filed in connection with the contempt matter:
“When being placed in the metal leg cuffs, I was unable to walk independently, so the Marshals removed my shoes and forced me to walk barefoot, flanked by officers holding my shoulders on each side, taking ‘mini-steps’ ten floors down to where the Courthouse has its criminal prison cells, and I stumbled several times. Once inside the isolated locked prison cell, I was ordered to sit down near a feces filled urinal in a cell that was littered with dirt and trash. My physical restraints were not removed after being placed in the locked prison cell. I remained cuffed in ‘hogtie’ fashion, inside the isolated and freezing locked prison cell for hours.” This newspaper uncovered the allegations in preparing a news story on the Jan. 24, 2022 Ninth Circuit memorandum opinion affirming a civil contempt sanction against Lang in the amount of $3,510. The opinion did not address her detention, noting that Lang had conceded that she had no appellate remedy for her incarceration.
Not Mandatory
Wardlaw pointed out that the §1351(b) process lies within the discretion of the chief judge. She noted that the decision to conduct an inquiry is confidential, as is the consideration of a complaint, and the correctness of any decision relating to such proceedings is not subject to challenge by filing a misconduct complaint.
The jurist remarked:
“The misconduct complaint here alleges that the chief judge was in dereliction of her duties because she failed to investigate or identify a complaint based on the 2021 contempt proceedings described in the editorial. Central to this misconduct complaint is the assumption that the chief judge received information about the 2021 contempt proceedings at some point prior to May 31, 2024, and failed to take action.
“To determine what the chief judge knew about the 2021 contempt proceedings and when any such information became known to her, a limited inquiry was conducted….This inquiry included conducting interviews with, and requesting documentation from, the chief judge, the circuit executive, circuit executive staff and other circuit judges.”
She continued:
“Based on the information gathered during this inquiry, and confirmed by multiple sources, it is clear that the chief judge did not become aware of the 2021 contempt proceedings until June 26, 2024, when another circuit judge first informed her about the editorial and, later that day, sent her a copy of the editorial itself. Once the chief judge received and reviewed the editorial, she immediately began conducting an inquiry process….”
Earlier Email
The METNEWS sent an email to Murguia in February 2022, which included a hyperlink to a previously published editorial about the same incident which urged an investigation. Noting that the chief judge “has no memory of receiving such an email,” Wardlaw said:
“It is highly likely that even if a correct email address was used, the external email would have been redirected. Moreover, for cybersecurity reasons, members of the judiciary are expressly cautioned against opening unsolicited emails or clicking on hyperlinks that originate outside of the judiciary’s infrastructure. Each such email arrives with a flag reading ‘Caution–External.’ To be clear, this method of communication–email with a hyperlink–is inadequate as a means of informing the chief judge of alleged judicial misconduct. It was certainly inadequate here, and would be inadvisable as a means of communicating information in the future.”
She declared:
“To the extent complainant challenges the court’s internal procedures governing how reports of alleged misconduct are handled, it is worth repeating that these processes are confidential, and any decision made pursuant to these processes is not subject to challenge under the Judicial Conduct Rules…..
“To the extent complainant alleges that the chief judge failed to act on known information, the allegation is dismissed because it lacks any factual support and is conclusively refuted by the results of this inquiry.”
Calls to Action
The May 2024 editorial notes repeated calls to action by the METNEWS and says:
“Today’s…feature recites—as it has in each report over the past year-and-a-quarter—lack of action in response to a lawyer’s account, under penalty of perjury, of barbarous treatment after U.S. District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California proclaimed her to be in contempt and ordered that she be taken into custody. And yet, on May 1, the Judicial Council of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reprimanded a judge of the Southern District of California for conduct that pales in comparison to what Wilson is accused of having done.
“Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary Murguia has some explaining to do. There is apparent dereliction on her part in failing to instigate an investigation, as a circuit’s chief judge is statutorily charged with doing, in response to a credible allegation of misconduct on the part of a judicial officer in the circuit. But nobody—not the Judicial Council, not Congress, not the metropolitan dailies or television news operations—is asking the relevant question:
“Why has Murguia failed to move in the matter of Wilson?”
The case is In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 24-90085.
The status of any inquiry into Wilson remains unclear.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company