Sanai v. Kozinski
| Decision Date | 09 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-cv-08162-YGR |
| Parties | CYRUS SANAI, Plaintiff, v. ALEX KOZINSKI, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Pro se plaintiff Cyrus Sanai brings this action against defendants Alex Kozinski, Cathy Catterson, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, Molly Dwyer, Sidney Thomas, Proctor Hug Jr., M. Margaret McKeown, Ronald M. Gould, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Audrey B. Collins, Irma E. Gonzalez, Roger L. Hunt, Terry J. Hatter Jr., Robert H. Whaley, and the Judicial Council of California. Sanai brings nine causes of action, including: (1) injunctive relief for violation of constitutional rights; (2) mandamus; (3) declaratory judgment; (4) abuse of process (federal law); (5) malicious prosecution (federal law); (6) wrongful use of administrative proceedings (California law); (7) Bivens claim for damages; (8) relief under California Public Records Act; and (9) injunctive relief to remedy future violation of constitutional rights.
Now before the Court are the following motions: (1) moving defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint (Dkt. No. 36);1 (2) Sanai's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 55); and (3) Sanai's amended administrative motion to serve remaining defendants Hunt and Whaley. (Dkt. No. 64.) The motions are fully briefed by the parties.
Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, and for the reasons set forth more fully below,2 the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: (1) the motion to dismiss is GRANTED; (2) the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is DENIED; and (3) the administrative motion to serve the remaining defendants is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court summarizes the allegations relevant to the disposition of the pending motions. The Court further incorporates and summarizes public orders and documents issued by the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council which are referenced throughout the complaint.3 Thus:
A. The Parties
Plaintiff Sanai is an attorney licensed to practice in California and various federal courts.
Defendants are an assortment of current and former federal judges and court staff, and related judicial entities. These include:
Current Judges. Thomas, McKeown, Gould, and Rawlinson are current judges who sit on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Hunt, Hatter, and Whaley are senior district court judges stationed at various district courts within the Ninth Circuit.
Former Judges. Kozinski is a former judge and chief judge of the Ninth Circuit who resigned in December 2017.4 Kozinski is now a practicing attorney appearing before federal courts including the Ninth Circuit. Hug is also a former Ninth Circuit judge.5 Collins andGonzalez are former judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Court Staff. Catterson is the former Clerk and Chief Executive of the Ninth Circuit. Dwyer is the current Clerk of the Ninth Circuit.
Related Judicial Entities. The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is an administrative agency of the United States that oversees the operation of federal courts within the Ninth Circuit. Its headquarters are in San Francisco, within the Northern District of California. Thomas is the current chairperson of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council. McKeown, Gould, Rawlinson, Hug, Collins, Gonzalez, Hunt, Hatter, and Whaley are either current or former members of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council. The Judicial Council of California is an administrative agency of the state of California. Its headquarters are in San Francisco.
B. Summary of the Allegations
In short, Sanai's complaint raises a barrage of allegations against current and former judges of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, the Judicial Council itself, and court officials.
A dispute between Sanai and Kozinski originated when they exchanged views on legal issues through articles published in 2005 in the San Francisco Recorder. During this time, Sanai discovered a website maintained by Kozinski, in which certain materials were uploaded and maintained on this website. Following that exchange, in October 2005, Sanai filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Kozinski. In December 2006, then Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder dismissed Sanai's complaint. Sanai alleges that certain findings by Chief Judge Schroeder were erroneous and that the dismissal Order was deliberately delayed for ulterior and possibly nefarious reasons, specifically "to give Kozinski time to take his website off-line and scrub the contents." Compl. ¶ 58. Sanai alleges that he filed a petition to review the dismissal order, and that that the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council denied his petition. Sanai thereafter filed another judicialmisconduct complaint against Kozinski.6
Following a June 2008 Los Angeles Times article stating that Kozinski's personal website contained publicly accessible and explicit materials, Kozinski self-reported and filed a misconduct complaint against himself. Sanai alleges that by order of Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court, that complaint and any future complaints related to the same events, was and were to be transferred to the Judicial Council for the Third Circuit for further proceedings. Sanai then filed another judicial misconduct complaint (the "2008 Complaint") against Kozinski.7
The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council thereafter issued an order staying proceedings on the 2008 Complaint. Id. ¶ 64; see Order, In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct (Aug. 19, 2008) ("2008 Stay Order") (Ex. A to the Mot.). As the 2008 Stay Order states, the Judicial Council examined the 2008 Complaint, "determined that exceptional circumstances do not exist," and concluded that it would be "inappropriate to transfer this complaint to the Third Circuit Council." 2008 Stay Order. Noting, however, that the Third Circuit Judicial Council's decision on the earlier complaint "could potentially affect some collateral aspects of the complaint," the Judicial Council stayed proceedings on the 2008 Complaint pending a decision in the Third Circuit. Id. Sanai alleges that the 2008 Stay Order violated Chief Justice Robert's order. Compl. ¶ 64.
In October 2009, the Third Circuit Judicial Council issued a decision on Judge Kozinski's self-reported complaint. Sanai's complaint reflects dissatisfaction with the investigatory process employed by the Third Circuit Judicial Council, where the sole witnessed consisted of testimony from Konzinski himself. Following this decision, Sanai alleges that the Judicial Council "began its campaign of retaliation." Id. ¶ 66. Sanai alleges that the 2008 Complaint was "assigned" to Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit, who Sanai alleges was "Kozinski's best friend on the Court." Id.8
Based on subsequent actions by the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, the Judicial Council issued a "Censure Order" against Sanai in alleged retaliation for his complaint.9 Compl. ¶ 67. Sanai asserts that the 2010 Order was improperly issued because the Judicial Council lacked jurisdiction for two reasons: first, he alleges that "the misconduct complaints" should have been transferred to the Third Circuit; second, he alleges that the Judicial Council was without power "to censure or sanction anyone" because Congress "never granted" such power. Id.
Thereafter, Sanai alleges that Kozinski and Catterson, as the then-Circuit Executive, "began a campaign" to have the State Bar, through its Chief Trial Counsel, file disciplinarycharges against him. Id. ¶ 68. The State Bar apparently filed such charges in 2014, and, according to Sanai, all but one of the charges, a charge related to Sanai's filing of judicial misconduct complaints, were dismissed. Finally, Sanai alleges that in December 2017, he filed a motion with the Judicial Council to vacate the 2010 Order. According to Sanai, this request remains pending.
In sum, Sanai's claims concern the 2010 Order. Specifically, Sanai asserts that the 2010 Order violated his due process rights (Counts 1, 2), constituted an "abuse of process" (Count 4), or constituted "malicious prosecution" (Count 5) because the authorizing act, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, does not specifically authorize a "censure order" and does not provide complainants with "due process rights to prove their complaints." Compl. ¶¶ 79, 89. Sanai also claims his rights were violated when the Judicial Council did not transfer the 2008 Complaint to the Third Circuit for all proceedings. Sanai further asserts a claim for a declaratory judgment (Count 3) that "fully sets out the history of Kozinski's sexual harassment, the enablement of it by the [Judicial Council], Catterson, and other members of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and District Court within the Ninth Circuit, and retaliatory conduct by Kozinski, the [Judicial Council], Catterson and others that was conducted against Mecham, Walter, Sanai, Hakala and others." Id. ¶ 97. Finally, in Counts 6 and 7, Sanai asserts claims for monetary damages for "wrongful use of administrative proceedings" (Count 6), id. ¶¶ 112-14, and further "demand[s] that a [Bivens] remedy be created" for his particular factual allegations, id. ¶ 120. These final two claims are based, again, on the 2010 Order, and on the assertion that defendants "wrongfully initiated a California attorney disciplinary proceeding," id. ¶ 112, with the objective "to retaliate against Sanai for blowing the whistle," id. ¶ 113.
Sanai seeks a variety of equitable relief, including injunctions that among other things, would require defendants to disclose numerous documents; would require the Judicial Council to promulgate broad information disclosure rules for all judges in the Ninth...
To continue reading
Request your trial