Opinion
Case Number: CJAD-2020-1
08-13-2020
COLEMAN v. COURT ON the JUDICIARY TRIAL DIV.
ORDER
¶1 On August 10, 2020, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Rehearing concerning this Court's August 7, 2020, Order granting the Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus and denying all relief requested. The Petition for Rehearing requests, in the alternative, findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.201 and 1.202 which concern summary dispositions and summary opinions in appeals. The Appellate Division has not adopted these specific rules of the Oklahoma Supreme Court nor do these rules mandate any action of this Court. However, for purposes of granting the Petitioner an explanation as to why relief was denied, we grant the Petition for Rehearing.
¶2 The Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction; and Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus challenged the Trial Division's jurisdiction. The Petitioner asserted in order to invoke the Trial Division's jurisdiction two things must occur: 1) the allegations must support either removal or compulsory retirement of the judge and 2) the prayer for relief must specifically request removal or compulsory retirement of the judge. Her argument that the prayer for relief must state removal or compulsory retirement is sought is based upon a prior decision of this Court, Mattingly v. Court on Judiciary, Trial Div., 2000 OK JUD 1, 8 P.3d 943. The prayer for relief in the original Petition, filed in the present case, and the one in Mattingly both state: "the above enumerated acts by the Respondent warrant discipline by the Court on the Judiciary as authorized by the statutes and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma." She argues neither the prayer for relief in Mattingly nor the original Petition here specifically request removal or compulsory retirement and Mattingly held jurisdiction of the Court was not properly invoked. We find the decision in Mattingly is distinguishable from the facts of the present case and hold the language in Mattingly that suggests a prayer for relief must include specific language was not necessary to that Court's holding nor is it required under the Oklahoma Constitution and is therefore considered judicial dictum. In so far as Mattingly can be interpreted to require any specific language in the prayer for relief, it is overruled.
¶3 Paragraph (a) of Section 4 of Article 7A of the Oklahoma Constitution provides the necessary requirements to invoke the jurisdiction of the Trial Division. These are:
The petition shall state the name of the respondent; the grounds upon which his removal from office or compulsory retirement from office is sought ; and such other matters as may be specified by the rules of the Trial Division . (emphasis added).
Paragraph (b) of Section 1 of Article 7A of the Oklahoma Constitution specifies various causes for a judge's removal from office as follows:
Gross neglect of duty ; corruption in office; habitual drunkenness; commission while in office of any offense involving moral turpitude; gross partiality in office ; oppression in office ; or other grounds as may be specified hereafter by the legislature . (emphasis added).
The "other grounds," relevant to this matter, are found in 20 O.S. 2011, § 1404 (C) which states:
Violation by a judicial officer of the Code of Judicial Conduct ... may constitute grounds for the removal ....
The original Petition clearly states the constitutionally required grounds for removal . Out of those enumerated above, it alleges Judge Coleman's various actions constituted oppression in office, gross neglect of duty and violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Petition also states she refused to recuse herself "in certain cases" which raised questions of impartiality. Page 3 of the Petition states specifically "[v]iolation by a judicial officer of these provisions provides grounds for removal from office under Art. 7-A § 1(b) of the Oklahoma Constitution and 20 O.S. 2011, § 1404 (C) ." In addition, Coleman cites no rules of the Trial Division specifically requiring a prayer to state that removal or compulsory retirement is sought. The Constitution does not specifically require the prayer to use special language.
¶4 In Mattingly, the Attorney General, at the request of the Council on Judicial Complaints, filed a Petition against a judge based upon alleged violations of Rule 27, Rules for the District Courts, for filing late orders. Mattingly, ¶¶1, 3. The Court noted that under Okla. Const. art. 7A, §§ 1 and 4, the Court on the Judiciary's jurisdiction is limited to only cases where "'removal from office or compulsory retirement' is sought.'" Id., ¶¶12-13. It found that the prayer in the Attorney General's petition only alleged that Mattingly's actions "warrant discipline" and therefore did not seek removal. Id., ¶13. However, the Court also found that the grounds alleged did not support removal from office. The Court held that "violations" of Rule 27 by Mattingly which caused no complaint until after his decision had been rendered, and then only by the losing party, were not "[c]ontinued wilful [sic] failure ... to comply with rules and directives." Mattingly , ¶22. The Court concluded that to allow the Council on Judicial Complaints to "institute actions against a judge for conduct that obviously falls short of the sort of conduct that would call for removal and where removal is not sought is prohibited by the constitution." Id., ¶24.
¶5 We agree with the Mattingly Court that the grounds alleged in a petition must support either removal from office or compulsory retirement. We disagree that the Oklahoma Constitution requires any special language in the prayer and overrule Mattingly as far as it can be interpreted to require such. As long as the prayer for relief can be interpreted to include removal from office or compulsory retirement and does not clearly request relief for something other than removal from office or compulsory retirement, it will suffice. The prayer for relief in the present case, although identical to Mattingly's prayer, requests that discipline be imposed based upon the statutes and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. This would include removal from office. Unlike Mattingly, there is no question here that the grounds alleged in the Petition support removal from office.
Okla.Const. art. 7A, § 1 (a): In addition to other methods and causes prescribed by the Constitution and laws, the judges of any court, exercising judicial power under the provisions of Article VII, or under any other provision, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, shall be subject to removal from office, or to compulsory retirement from office, for causes herein specified, by proceedings in the Court on the Judiciary.
--------
¶6 Petition for Rehearing is granted. All relief requested in the Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction; and Petition for Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus is denied.
¶7 Any petition for a rehearing in this matter shall be filed no later than noon, Monday, August 17, 2020.
/s/ MARK R. CAMPBELL
Presiding Judge of the Court on the Judiciary, Appellate Division
VOTE: ALL JUDGES CONCUR