Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-2376
September 24, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before this Court is a Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 21) filed by Plaintiff on January 22, 2002. For the reasons set forth below, upon consideration of the Motion, Defendants' Response (Doc. 23), and Plaintiff's Reply (Doc. 24), this Court denied the Motion.
BACKGROUND
The original action in this case was filed with the Court on May 7, 1999. Plaintiff sought injunctive and other relief from alleged age discrimination and violations of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, arising from his statutorily-mandated early retirement, at the age of 56, from his position as an air traffic controller (ATC) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The case was assigned by the Court to Senior Judge Raymond J. Broderick. Judge Broderick granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all counts for failure to state a claim, and closed the case. Dungan v. Slater, No. 99-2376, 2000 WL 218120 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2000). Plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Third Circuit, where the ruling was affirmed on the merits. Dungan v. Slater, 252 F.3d 670 (3d Cir. 2001). The Third Circuit issued its mandate upholding the District Court's ruling and closure of the case on June 22, 2001. Plaintiff's subsequent petition for certiorari review to the Supreme Court was denied. Dungan v. Mineta, 122 S.Ct. 397 (2001). Judge Broderick died of cancer on August 6, 2000.
Judge Broderick, who took senior status in 1984, was first diagnosed with cancer in the 1970s. See Plaintiff Motion, Exhibit A. Judge Broderick retired from the federal judiciary in June, 2000.
Plaintiff now petitions this Court for a new trial on grounds that he was "denied a fair hearing and . . . due process of law" because Judge Broderick, without Plaintiff's knowledge, had cancer at the time his original action was before the Court. Recognizing his request for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b) is untimely, Plaintiff relies on 28 U.S.C. § 372 and, in the alternative, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to re-open this case and obtain a new trial.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(b) required that a motion for new trial be filed within 10 days of entry of final judgment.
DISCUSSION
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the "Act"), 28 U.S.C. § 372(c), is a judicial disciplinary provision which sets forth an administrative procedure whereby "[a]ny person alleging that a circuit, district, or bankruptcy judge, or a magistrate [magistrate judge] . . . is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability" may file a complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1). A person initiating a complaint under the Act must "file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint containing a brief statement of facts constituting" the alleged misconduct. Id. The chief judge of the circuit is authorized to either dismiss the complaint or initiate further investigation into the matter to determine whether, in "the interests of the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts," to take corrective action. Id.
Plaintiff has failed to raise his claim in the proper forum. Federal district courts do no have jurisdiction over matters arising under this statute. Judicial misconduct complaints are first reviewed by the chief judge of the circuit and then, if necessary, by a special committee organized under the authority of the Act. 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(4). Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint of alleged misconduct or disability must be filed with the clerk of the Third Circuit, where the chief judge of the circuit is directed to undertake initial review. Id.
In any case, Plaintiff would not be granted a new trial under this Act even if his complaint were properly filed. "Judicial remedies or correct order" or rulings by a court are not available under this statute. In re Complaint of Latimer, 955 F.2d 1036, 1037 (5th Cir. 1992). The Act expressly directs dismissal of complaints "directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling." 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A)(ii).
Plaintiff's motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) must also fail. Plaintiff has not set forth facts to justify a decision by this Court to grant the extraordinary relief available under this rule. Plaintiff merely alleges certain pre-trial procedural errors were made by Judge Broderick, the same errors Plaintiff argued in his appeal to the Third Circuit. As the Third Circuit noted in its opinion, Plaintiff's procedural arguments were rendered moot by its decision to affirm Judge Broderick's ruling on the merits. Dungan v. Slater, 252 F.3d at 676. Accordingly, Plaintiff has received all the process to which he is due.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 21), Defendants' Response (Doc. 23), and Plaintiff's Reply (Doc. 24), it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial is DENIED.