In re Charges of Judicial Misconduct (465 F.3d 532, 2006)

ORDER

Seven complaints of judicial misconduct were filed against a district judge of this Circuit, Chief Judge Robert N. 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”).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 353(a) and Local Rule 9, Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr., United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appointed a special committee to investigate the facts and the allegations contained in the above-referenced complaints. The Special Committee consisted of Chief Judge Walker, Circuit Judge Pierre N. Leval, and Chief District Judge Michael B. Mukasey of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Special Committee has submitted its Report to the Judicial Council, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 353(c) and Local Rule 10(e).

The Judicial Council of the Second Circuit, after full consideration of the issues raised in the above-referenced complaints, and for the reasons set forth in the Report of the Special Committee, finds no misconduct as to any of the claims.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Report of the Special Committee is ADOPTED and, for the reasons stated therein, the Judicial Council finds no misconduct. The above-referenced complaints are hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Committee’s Report and this Order shall be released to the public, as authorized by the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit and agreed to in writing by Judge Chatigny, the judge who is the subject of the complaints, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 360(a) and Local Rule 17.

SO ORDERED.

APPENDIX

REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Table of Contents

I. Statement of Claims tobe Adjudicated. .534

II. General Principles Governing Misconduct Proceedings . .537

III. Discussion of Specifications and Recommendations of Committee . cn co oo

A. Whether Judge Chatigny violated 28 U.S.C. § 455 by not, ab initio, disclosing his prior involvement with Ross’s state criminal proceedings or recusing himself from the two district court actions based on that prior involvement. ox 05 00

B. Whether Judge Chatigny improperly threatened Paulding with disbarment if he did not pursue particular issues. LO

C. Whether Judge Chatigny interfered with Ross’s constitutional right to representation by counsel of his choice . OX -3

D. Whether, during the proceedings, Judge Chatigny “abandoned the role of neutral and detached magistrate and instead became an advocate for the position held by the parties who were seeking to stop the execution.”. ox

E. Whether, after Judge Chatigny’s stay orders had been vacated, Judge Chatigny lacked authority to proceed on January 28, 2005, “in the absence of any motion by a party or an Article III case or controversy.”.