Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 4 - Motion For Recusal Of Judge Collins
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 4 - Motion For Recusal Of Judge Collins as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 814
- Pages: 5
1 2 3 4
RICHARD I. FINE c/o Men’s Central Jail Prisoner ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90012
5 6 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
8 9 10
Case No. MC-09-00129 ABC
In the Disciplinary Matter of RICHARD ISAAC FINE
RULE 60 MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE COLLINS FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THAT HER HUSBAND, DR. TIM COLLINS, IS THE DENTAL DIRECTOR OF THE LA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
11 12
California State Bar No.: 55259
13 14 15 16
28 USC § 455(a)
17 18 19
Judge Collins did not disclose that her husband, Tim Collins, is the Dental
20 21 22
Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services and has been such since at least 1998, the time encompassed by the disbarment case.
23 24
Fine became aware of such information on August 10, 2009, after having
25 26 27
been orally informed of Judge Collins’ ruling herein. Such information was in a Los Angeles Times article printed March 9, 2009, concerning Judge Collins.
28
-1
1 2 3 4
The relevance of this information is that Counts 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 of the disbarment case all related to the payments made by Los Angeles County (hereinafter “LA County”) to LA County Superior Court judges.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
These payments were held to violate Article VI, § 19 of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) rev. denied 12/23/08. These payments were also made criminal acts by Senate Bill “SBX2 11” enacted February 20, 2009, which gave retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to
12 13 14
government employees (judges) who received “judicial benefits”, and government entities (counties) and employees who gave them.
15 16
Since disbarment on these counts for bringing lawsuits challenging the LA
17 18 19
County payments as unconstitutional violated the law and the U.S. Constitution, Judge Collins’ action of upholding such was clearly biased, particularly in view
20 21
of the income her husband and she, through marriage, receive from LA County.
22 23
Judge Collins should have recused herself from the case.
24 25 26
2004 ABA Annotated Mode Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, states: “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
27 28
-2
1 2 3 4 5
The ABA Model Code’s test for appearance of impropriety is “whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.”
6 7 8 9 10 11
In the recent case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 566 U.S. ___ (2009) decided 6/8/2009, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed disqualification under 28 USC § 455(a) citing to ABA Model Code Canon 2 and the commentary and also stated at Slip Opinion page 18 in relevant part:
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
“… see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 558 (1994) (Kennedy, J. concurring in judgment) (“[U]nder [28 USC] Section 455(a), a judge should be disqualified only if it appears that he or she harbors any aversion, hostility or disposition of a kind that a fair-minded person could not set aside when judging the dispute”).” Here, Judge Collins falls in that category. Her family income depends upon LA County, whose criminal actions are at the heart of the disbarment case. She did not disclose this conflict of interest and she did not set it aside in
22 23
deciding the disbarment case.
24 25
Judge Collins must be recused.
26 27 28
-3
PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am ___________. My mailing address is _________________________. On August ____, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as RULE 60 MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE COLLINS FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THAT HER HUSBAND, DR. TIM COLLINS, IS THE DENTAL DIRECTOR OF THE LA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, 28 USC § 455(a) on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed as follows: None: No other parties identified within Order to Show Cause. No other parties identified in court docket on PACER.
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this ____ day of August, 2009, in the city of _____________, California. ____________________________________
1 2 3
Signature ____________________________________ Print Name
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-2
RICHARD I. FINE c/o Men’s Central Jail Prisoner ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail 441 Bauchet Street Los Angeles, CA 90012
5 6 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
8 9 10
Case No. MC-09-00129 ABC
In the Disciplinary Matter of RICHARD ISAAC FINE
RULE 60 MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE COLLINS FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THAT HER HUSBAND, DR. TIM COLLINS, IS THE DENTAL DIRECTOR OF THE LA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
11 12
California State Bar No.: 55259
13 14 15 16
28 USC § 455(a)
17 18 19
Judge Collins did not disclose that her husband, Tim Collins, is the Dental
20 21 22
Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services and has been such since at least 1998, the time encompassed by the disbarment case.
23 24
Fine became aware of such information on August 10, 2009, after having
25 26 27
been orally informed of Judge Collins’ ruling herein. Such information was in a Los Angeles Times article printed March 9, 2009, concerning Judge Collins.
28
-1
1 2 3 4
The relevance of this information is that Counts 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 of the disbarment case all related to the payments made by Los Angeles County (hereinafter “LA County”) to LA County Superior Court judges.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
These payments were held to violate Article VI, § 19 of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) rev. denied 12/23/08. These payments were also made criminal acts by Senate Bill “SBX2 11” enacted February 20, 2009, which gave retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to
12 13 14
government employees (judges) who received “judicial benefits”, and government entities (counties) and employees who gave them.
15 16
Since disbarment on these counts for bringing lawsuits challenging the LA
17 18 19
County payments as unconstitutional violated the law and the U.S. Constitution, Judge Collins’ action of upholding such was clearly biased, particularly in view
20 21
of the income her husband and she, through marriage, receive from LA County.
22 23
Judge Collins should have recused herself from the case.
24 25 26
2004 ABA Annotated Mode Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, states: “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
27 28
-2
1 2 3 4 5
The ABA Model Code’s test for appearance of impropriety is “whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.”
6 7 8 9 10 11
In the recent case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 566 U.S. ___ (2009) decided 6/8/2009, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed disqualification under 28 USC § 455(a) citing to ABA Model Code Canon 2 and the commentary and also stated at Slip Opinion page 18 in relevant part:
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
“… see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 558 (1994) (Kennedy, J. concurring in judgment) (“[U]nder [28 USC] Section 455(a), a judge should be disqualified only if it appears that he or she harbors any aversion, hostility or disposition of a kind that a fair-minded person could not set aside when judging the dispute”).” Here, Judge Collins falls in that category. Her family income depends upon LA County, whose criminal actions are at the heart of the disbarment case. She did not disclose this conflict of interest and she did not set it aside in
22 23
deciding the disbarment case.
24 25
Judge Collins must be recused.
26 27 28
-3
PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am ___________. My mailing address is _________________________. On August ____, 2009, I served the foregoing document described as RULE 60 MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE COLLINS FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THAT HER HUSBAND, DR. TIM COLLINS, IS THE DENTAL DIRECTOR OF THE LA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, 28 USC § 455(a) on interested parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed as follows: None: No other parties identified within Order to Show Cause. No other parties identified in court docket on PACER.
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this ____ day of August, 2009, in the city of _____________, California. ____________________________________
1 2 3
Signature ____________________________________ Print Name
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-2
Related Documents
Usdc Disbarment - Dkt 3 - Order Of Disbarment
June 2020 7
More Documents from "Honor in Justice"
