U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 16— COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

28 U.S.C. § 351

Complaints; judge defined

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Filing of Complaint by Any Person.—Any person alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability, may file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct.(b)Identifying Complaint by Chief Judge.—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.(c)Transmittal of Complaint.—Upon receipt of a complaint filed under subsection (a), the clerk shall promptly transmit the complaint to the chief judge of the circuit, or, if the conduct complained of is that of the chief judge, to that circuit judge in regular active service next senior in date of commission (hereafter, for purposes of this chapter only, included in the term “chief judge”). The clerk shall simultaneously transmit a copy of the complaint to the judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint. The clerk shall also transmit a copy of any complaint identified under subsection (b) to the judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint.(d)Definitions.—In this chapter—(1) the term “judge” means a circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy judge, or magistrate judge; and(2) the term “complainant” means the person filing a complaint under subsection (a) of this section.(Added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, § 11042(a), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1848.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesSeverability

Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, § 11044, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1856, provided that: “If any provision of this subtitle [subtitle C (§§ 11041–11044) of title I of div. C of Pub. L. 107–273, enacting this chapter, amending sections 331, 332, 372, 375, and 604 of this title, and section 7253 of Title 38, Veterans’ Benefits, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 1 of this title], an amendment made by this subtitle, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 199 cases (130 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: In Re Complaint of Jud. Misconduct, 425 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Complaint of Jud. Misconduct, 425 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 10× “§ 372 (c) (now 28 U.S.C. § 351 (a)) in February 2003. The Chief Judge entered an Order and Memorandum dismissing the complaint on July 14, 2003.”
In re Complaint of Jud. Misconduct, 751 F.3d 611 (2014). · cites it 8× “The order found that Judge Cebull’s conduct was “ ‘prejudicial to the effective administration of the business of the courts’ under 28 U.S.C. § 351 .” It further found that Judge Ce-bull had violated Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct, which provides that a “judge should avoid…”
In Re Focus Media, Inc., Debtor, Focus Media, Inc. v. Nat'l Broad. Co. Inc. Abc Inc. Paxson Commc'ns Inc., 378 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004). “See 28 U.S.C. § 351 (c). The bankruptcy judge explained that because the complaint contained information and allegations relevant to the bankruptcy proceedings — specifically, Sullivan’s characterization of the bankruptcy proceedings up to the filing of the complaint — she…”
Smith v. Scalia, 44 F. Supp. 3d 28 (D.D.C. 2014). “for what it's worth, this does not mean that private citizens are entirely without options with respect to the conduct of purportedly misbehaving judges: when judicial misconduct is "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts,” or a…”
Cox v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 213 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Other statutes cited by plaintiffs that do not mandate the payment of money damages include 28 U.S.C. § 351 (“Complaints; judge defined”), 28 U.”
In Re Complaint of Jud. Misconduct, 575 F.3d 279 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “A Complaint of judicial misconduct was identified under 28 U.S.C. § 351 (b) against *280 Chief Judge Alex Kozinski 1 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.”
In Re Opinion of Jud. Conf. Comm. to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders, 449 F.3d 106 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 351 (a). The Clerk of the Court is required to promptly transmit any such complaint to the chief judge of the circuit as well as to the judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint.”
Smith v. Krieger, 389 F. App'x 789 (10th Cir. 2010). “For those “alleging that a judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability,” 28 U.S.C. §…”
Fagan v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist., 644 F. Supp. 2d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “” 28 U.S.C. § 351 (a); see also Rules of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Governing Complaints Against Judicial Officers.”
In re Charges of Jud. Misconduct, 769 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “ORDER Thirteen individuals and public interest groups filed a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against Judge Edith Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351 (a). The complainants asked the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit…”
In Re Complaint of Jud. Misconduct, 366 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2004). “” 28 U.S.C. § 351 (a). The phrase, “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts,” admittedly, is not a precise term.”
In re Charges of Jud. Misconduct, 465 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “Chatigny of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351 and the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Governing Complaints Against Judicial Officers (“Local Rules”).”
Show all 199 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.