Filed: Mar. 05, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2020
Summary: ORDER RE: FORMAL FEDERAL COMPLAINT TO CHIEF JUSTICE MICH[AE]L SEABRIGHT AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGE DERRI[C]K K. WATSON PER FRCP 351(A) DERRICK K. WATSON , District Judge . On February 21, 2020, the Clerk of Court received a document from pro se Plaintiff Thomas Lauro in the above-captioned cases, each of which is closed, 1 titled "Formal Federal Complaint to Chief Justice Micheal [sic] Seabright against Federal Judge Derrik [sic] K. Watson, per FRCP 351(A) Direct Violations of Thomas Lauro's Un
Summary: ORDER RE: FORMAL FEDERAL COMPLAINT TO CHIEF JUSTICE MICH[AE]L SEABRIGHT AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGE DERRI[C]K K. WATSON PER FRCP 351(A) DERRICK K. WATSON , District Judge . On February 21, 2020, the Clerk of Court received a document from pro se Plaintiff Thomas Lauro in the above-captioned cases, each of which is closed, 1 titled "Formal Federal Complaint to Chief Justice Micheal [sic] Seabright against Federal Judge Derrik [sic] K. Watson, per FRCP 351(A) Direct Violations of Thomas Lauro's Uni..
More
ORDER RE: FORMAL FEDERAL COMPLAINT TO CHIEF JUSTICE MICH[AE]L SEABRIGHT AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGE DERRI[C]K K. WATSON PER FRCP 351(A)
DERRICK K. WATSON, District Judge.
On February 21, 2020, the Clerk of Court received a document from pro se Plaintiff Thomas Lauro in the above-captioned cases, each of which is closed,1 titled "Formal Federal Complaint to Chief Justice Micheal [sic] Seabright against Federal Judge Derrik [sic] K. Watson, per FRCP 351(A) Direct Violations of Thomas Lauro's United States Constitutional Rights to go to Trial and be Heard by a Jury of His Peers, Concealment of Federal Court Documents from a Sealed Portion of a Hearing on November 19, 2015, Between Plaintiff[']s Attorney Micheal [sic] Green and Judge Derrik [sic] Watson of which Caused a `Material Change in Circumstances Conveyed to the Court by Plaintiff's Councel [sic] During the Sealed Portion of the Hearing.'" See Civ. No. 12-00637 DKW-RT, ECF No. 362; Civ. No. 19-00585 DKW-KJM, ECF No. 20. Because Plaintiff's document referenced the caption and civil case numbers of these closed cases, did not indicate that it was intended as a new action, was not accompanied by a civil filing fee or in forma pauperis application, and repeatedly referred to a "Motion for Relief from Judgment and Order, Motion for Recusal," it was docketed in both cases and liberally construed as a "Motion for Relief from Judgment and Order, Motion for Recusal."2 Id.
After a careful review of the document and its attachments, it appears that Plaintiff intended his filing to be a judicial misconduct complaint against the undersigned, to be reviewed by Chief United States District Judge J. Michael Seabright, or possibly as requests to this Court for recusal or to reconsider its prior dispositive rulings.3 The Court addresses each of these possibilities in turn.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Judicial Misconduct Complaint to or Appellate Review by Chief Judge Seabright
To the extent that Plaintiff intended his filing to be a formal complaint of judicial misconduct against the undersigned, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351,4 he must file such a complaint with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial Disability-Proceedings, art. III, Rule 7(a)(1) ("[A] complaint against a judge of a United States court of appeals, a United States district court, a United States bankruptcy court, or a United States magistrate judge must be filed with the circuit clerk in the jurisdiction in which the subject judge holds office."); see also Judicial-Conduct Rule 6 (stating filing requirements for misconduct complaints).
And, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks Chief Judge Seabright's review of this Court's decisions in Civ. No. 12-00637 and Civ. No. 19-00585, he is notified that a federal district judge, even the chief judge of a federal district court, has no authority to review, overrule, or modify any actions or rulings taken by another federal district judge in any case. See, e.g., In re Tia, 2012 WL 3985736, at *3 (D. Haw. Sept. 10, 2012) (citing Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987). Allowing such review by one district judge over another district judge's rulings "would be to permit, in effect, a `horizontal appeal' from one district court to another or even a `reverse review' of a ruling of the court of appeals by a district court." Id. (quoting Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1392-93). Chief Judge Seabright has no authority to review decisions made by any other district judge in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, including the undersigned.
If Plaintiff disagrees with this Court's decisions in Civ. Nos. 12-00637 and 19-00585, he may file a judicial misconduct complaint or an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Chief Judge Seabright has no authority to and would not preside over either proceeding. Accordingly, Plaintiff's judicial misconduct complaint seeking review by Chief Judge Seabright is improperly filed in the District of Hawaii and is DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking the appropriate relief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
B. Recusal or Relief from Judgment
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks this Court's recusal in Civ. No. 12-00637 and Civ. No. 19-00585, his request is DENIED. The Court has already addressed Plaintiff's recusal request in a November 20, 2019 Order Denying As-Construed Motion for Recusal, Civ. No. 19-00585, ECF No. 7, and nothing presented in Plaintiff's most recent filing provides cause to reconsider that ruling.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from judgment in Civ. No. 12-00637, the Motion is DENIED. Once again, this Court has already addressed Plaintiff's request for relief from judgment in a December 4, 2019 Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 357, and nothing presented in Plaintiff's most recent filing provides cause to reconsider that ruling.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from judgment in Civ. No. 19-00585 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the Motion is similarly DENIED. Although Plaintiff alleges the same litany of disagreements within the present filing that he alleged regarding the dismissal of Civ. No. 12-00637, he fails to provide any reason justifying reconsideration of this Court's decision that his claims in Civ. No. 19-00585 are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. That is, Plaintiff fails to show:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
II. CONCLUSION
(1) To the extent that Plaintiff intended his filing as a new judicial misconduct complaint addressed to Chief Judge Seabright, regarding this Court's decisions in Civ. No. 12-00637 and Civ. No. 19-00585, the document is DISMISSED as seeking relief unavailable in the District of Hawaii, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing an appropriate complaint with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The rules for filing such a complaint may be found at the "judicial misconduct" link at the bottom of the Ninth Circuit's public website at ca9.uscourts.gov, should Plaintiff wish to proceed in that manner.
(2) To the extent Plaintiff seeks this Court's recusal, or relief from the judgments or orders issued in Civ. No. 12-00637 and Civ. No. 19-00585, such requests are DENIED for the reasons set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
