explaining that while “administrative functions” generally include “[p]ersonnel decisions,” they do not include events that “arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her official capacity”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that while “administrative functions” generally include “[p]ersonnel decisions,” they do not include events that “arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her official capacity”
- explaining that “administrative functions” include “[p]ersonnel decisions,” as opposed to events that “arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her official capacity”
- instructing courts to consider “whether (1) the act is a normal judicial function, (2) the events occurred in the judge’s chambers, (3) the controversy centered around a case then pending before the judge, and (4) the events at issue arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her official capacity.” (citations omitted)
- listing factors to consider when determining whether an act is judicial in nature
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. Rather than deciding as a general matter whether judicial misconduct can be found in routine personnel decisions, I would affirm the Chief Judge’s decision for the reasons she gave.