Charov v. Perry et al

Filing 46

ORDER Dismissing 45 Complaint of Judicial Misconduct filed by Ilia Charov. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 10/25/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Charov v. Perry et al

Doc. 46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ILIA CHAROV, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) ) MICHAEL PERRY CEO, INDYMAC ) BANK F.S.B., DEUTSCHE BANK ) NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; ) ONE WEST BANK, FSB; QUALITY ) LOAN SERVICES; CHRISTIAN ) FLORES, et al., ) ) Defendant(s). ) ____________________________________)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***

Case No. 2:09-cv-2443-GMN-RJJ ORDER Re: Claim of Judicial Misconduct

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Notice of Judicial Misconduct (#45, filed October 14, 2010) directed to ATTENTION CHIEF JUDGE ROGER HUNT. Accordingly, as Chief Judge, the undersigned has considered Plaintiff's document and interprets it as a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct. This Complaint of Judicial Misconduct arises out of the foreclosure of a home originally owned by Plaintiff, but which was quit claimed by him to another, destroying any standing Plaintiff had to challenge the foreclosure. For that reason, and for the reason that Plaintiff failed to amend the faulty complaint as ordered and also failed to either pay the filing fee or petition to be declared in forma pauperis, the case was dismissed. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Plaintiff now alleges judicial misconduct because Judge Navarro's rulings were improper because she did not comply with the law, ignored facts, allowed illegal use of statutes, and refused to properly consider and grant Plaintiff's various motions. Charges that relate directly to the merits of the judge's ruling are not cognizable under the misconduct complaint procedure and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §352(b)(1)(A)(ii); Judicial-Conduct Rule 3(h)(3)(A); In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 685 F.2d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 1982). Adverse rulings are insufficient to support disqualification based upon claims of bias or prejudice. Hall v. Doering, 185 FRD 639, 742 (D. Kan. 1999); Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, (1994), even if the number of such rulings is extraordinarily high. Stivers v. Pierce, 71 F.3d 732, 741-742 (9th Cir. 1995) See also, U.S. v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869 (9th Cir. 1980) (it is not ground for disqualification that a judge has ruled against the moving party or that he may have made an error of law). Plaintiff's request for the case (and all future cases) to be reassigned to a new judge is not cognizable under the misconduct complaint procedure. See Judicial-Conduct rule 11(a). Moreover, the request is moot in this case, as the matter has been dismissed, and is premature as to any cases which may be filed in the future. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint of Judicial Conduct, styled as NOTICE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, is DISMISSED. Dated: October 25, 2010.

____________________________________ Roger L. Hunt Chief United States District Judge

2