Lauro v. State of Hawaii et al
Filing
363
ORDER RE: FORMAL FEDERAL COMPLAINT TO CHIEF JUSTICE MICH[AE]L SEABRIGHT AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGE DERRI[C]K K. WATSON PER FRCP 351(A) re 362 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 3/5/2020. (CV 12-00637 DKW-RT; CV 19-00585 DKW-KJM) (emt, )COURT'S CERTIFICATE of Service - Thomas Lauro shall be served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on March 6, 2020.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
THOMAS LAURO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )
)
THOMAS LAURO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________
CIV. NO. 12-00637 DKW-RT
CIV. NO. 19-00585 DKW-KJM
ORDER RE: FORMAL FEDERAL
COMPLAINT TO CHIEF JUSTICE
MICH[AE]L SEABRIGHT
AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGE
DERRI[C]K K. WATSON PER
FRCP 351(A)
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
1
Civil No. 12-00637 was closed on December 3, 2015; Civil No. 19-00585 was closed on
January 9, 2020. See ECF Nos. 321 and 14 (respectively).
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.
2
Above its caption, the document states: “*Please use the Enclosed Formal Motion for
Recusal, Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment and Motion for Production of Documents
as Exhibits and Attachments to this Complaint against Derrik [sic] Watson per FRCP 351(A) and
Attached photo.” These documents were not enclosed with Lauro’s filing.
At the bottom of the first page, the document states: “(*NOTE: Please Attach Motion for
Recusal of Derrik [sic] K. Watson; (enclosed) as Part of this Federal Complaint); See Amended
Motion for Relief from Judgment as part of this FRCP 351(a) Complaint - (copy); *please see
expert reports and photos; *Please Attach Copy of Motion for Production of Documents dated
12/17/19 to this Complaint; Please Attach ‘Formal Motion For (copy) Recusal’ with this
Complaint, FRCP 351(a); *Please also use original motion for Relief from Judgment filed
11/22/19 for this Complaint Attach motion (copy).” These documents, reports, and photographs
were also not enclosed with Lauro’s filing.
The final notation on the document’s first page states: “Enclosures: Green Esq. letter
dated 1/27/20; Honolulu Advertiser front pg story 6/30/13; and Defendants Sentencing
memorandum 7/8/10.” These documents were enclosed and filed as attachments.
(continued...)
2
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.
A.
DISCUSSION
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
2
(...continued)
See ECF Nos. 362-1 and 20-1 (respectively).
3
For example, Plaintiff states, “Derrik [sic] K. Watson’s outrageous charade and
extraordinary judicial misconduct must stop immediately and any and all decisions, Judgements,
Orders or legal actions regarding CV-12-00637-DKW-RT and CV-19-00585-DKW-KJM should
be thoroughly reviewed by Chief Justice Micheal [sic] Seabright and the Department of Justice
and the United States Attorney General William Barr Esq. as well as the FBI in the best interest
of upholding, protecting, enforcing and supporting The United States Constitution and our 1st
Amendment Rights in any and all Federal Court Proceedings.” Civ. No. 12-00637 DKW-RT,
ECF No. 362 at 11; Civ. No. 19-00585 DKW-KJM, ECF No. 20 at 11.
4
Plaintiff repeatedly refers to “FRCP 351(A),” or “FRCP 351(a);” the Court construes
this as referring to 28 U.S.C. § 351, which pertains to judicial misconduct proceedings.
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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.
DATED: March 5, 2020 at Honolulu, Hawaii.
/s/ Derrick K. Watson
Derrick K. Watson
United States District Judge
Lauro v. State, NO. 1:12-cv-00637 DKW-RT; Lauro v. State, NO. 1:19-cv-00585
DKW-KJM; ORDER RE: FORMAL FEDERAL COMPLAINT TO CHIEF
JUSTICE MICH[AE]L SEABRIGHT AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGE DERRI[C]K
K. WATSON PER FRCP 351(A).
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?