XXXX
Date: _________
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
XXXX

Respectfully,
This letter serves as my formal complaint against Hon. XXXX (hereinafter the
“judge”), who was the presiding judge in the aforementioned case at the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, Department C25. I am the Plaintiff in the case. This complaint is
based on the grounds that the Judge is biased towards the Defendant’s side, as I shall describe in
pertinent detail below. Further, the Judge presided over the case although he is retired.
Accordingly, in support of this Complaint, I state as follows:
RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The incidence giving rise to this action began when I’s mother had been admitted at the
hospital’s facility. On XXXX, I went to visit my mother. As I was checking in at the
ER at the hospital’s facility, Herbert stole my phone from the ER lobby and pushed me until I
fell.
Consequently, the police officers arrived and took a police report of the incidence. Interestingly,
Herbert gave false information that I was the one who punched his face. Accordingly, I was
charged and a case was filed against me. During the pendency of the said case, the Irvine Police
Department refused to give me a copy of the Police Report. It was only when the case was
dismissed when the Irvine Police Department gave me the Report.
The said case was dismissed on XXXX. After the dismissal of the case, I got the Report. It is
also worth noting that during the trial of the said case, the detective, the attorneys of the hospital,
and the head of security personnel at the hospital looked at the hospital camera footage that
recorded the events of XXXX. I tried to subpoena the hospital for the footage.
However, I used the wrong Subpoena. Accordingly, the hospital’s attorney filed a Motion to
quash the said Subpoena on the ground that it violated HIPPA laws. On or about December
2020, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Quash the Subpoena. I therefore never got an
opportunity to present pertinent evidence of what really happened on the incident.

Unfortunately, my mother died during the pendency of the case against me. Further, I have been
subjected to emotional harm and distress pursuant to the malicious prosecution and the acts
and/or inactions of the Defendants.
I filed an action against the Defendants on or about XXXX. In the Complaint, I alleged
that Defendants were blameworthy for negligence, malicious prosecution, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
It was not until XXXXX, that Defendant Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian filed an
answer to my Complaint, which Defendant’s responsive pleading was filed beyond the allowed
30-day timeline.
On or about XXXX, I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court set the hearing
date for the motion on or about XXXX.
On or about XXXX, I filed a Request for Court Reporter by Party with Fee Waiver, for the
Summary Judgment hearing scheduled for XXXXX.

THE JUDGE’S VIOLATIONS OF APPLICABLE LAW

Canon 3 provides that a Judge shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially,
Competently, and Diligently. Notably, “[a] judge shall be faithful to the law regardless of
partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence
in the law.” Canon 3B(2).
Further, “[a] judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.” Canon 3B(5).
Accordingly, “[a] judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, engage in speech,
gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as (a) bias, prejudice, or
harassment…” Id.
Canon 3B(7) also provides that “[a] judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in
a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.” Canon 3B(8)
further buttresses the foregoing by providing that “[a] judge shall dispose of all judicial matters
fairly, promptly, and efficiently. A judge shall manage the courtroom in a manner that provides
all litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly adjudicated in accordance with the law.”
The Advisory Committee’s Commentary on Canon 3B(8) specifies that “the obligation of a
judge to dispose of matters promptly and efficiently must not take precedence over the judge’s
obligation to dispose of the matters fairly and with patience.” (Emphasis added).
Some of the Judge’s administrative responsibilities include “diligently discharge the judge’s
administrative responsibilities impartially, on the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice, free
of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the
judiciary.” Canon 3C(1).
In light of the foregoing, I assert that the Judge violated the aforesaid standards of practice in the
following manner:

Judge, pursuant to CCP §170.6(a). In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows:
1. The Judge denied my right to a Court Reporter
In the aforementioned case, I am entitled to a court reporter. An official court reporter must
generally be made available to in forma pauperis litigants upon request. See Jameson v. Desta, 5
Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018). Besides, I did not waiver my right to a court reporter. I cannot afford the
price of a court reporter.
On or about July 25, 2022, I requested for a Court Reporter by filing “Request for Court
Reporter by Party with Fee Waiver Filed”, for the Summary Judgment hearing scheduled for
August 1, 2022 (Exhibit A- Request for Court Reporter). The court had made previous fee
waivers in the case such as on XXXXX (Exhibit B- Order
granting fee waiver).
At the day of the hearing, the clerk informed me that there was no court reporter. The clerk
further told me that on Mondays, the Court usually does not have court reporters. Consequently,
in a bid to protect my right to a court reporter, I asked for continuance until such a time when a
court reporter would be available. The Judge should have only moved the hearing to a different
date other than Monday, to such a time when a court reporter would be available. Besides, there
would be no reasonable objection from the Defendant if the hearing would be moved to a date
when the court reporter would be available.
However, the Judge told me outrightly that I would not get the court reporter for free. The Judge
further insinuated that I would have to pay the Defendant’s attorney fees, and pay the court
reporter’s fees if I continued the case. The Judge’s conduct is a denial of my right to have free
court reporter since I proceed in pro per, and have been granted fee waivers.
The Judge then disregarded my request for continuance and issued a tentative ruling on the
motion for summary judgment, holding in favor of the Defendant (Exhibit C- Tentative
Ruling). This further amounted to a violation of my due process rights to fair hearing because
the Judge prevented me from getting an evidentiary hearing on an official record, which record I
would have used for appeal. Besides, the Judge did not even look at my Response to Defendant’s
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
2. The Judge denied my due process rights to a fair hearing.
My right to fair hearing was violated by the Judge. Freedom from arbitrary adjudicative
procedures is a substantive element of one’s liberty. See People v. Ramirez, 25 Cal.3d 260, 320
(1979). Due process guaranteed under Article I § 7 of the California Constitution thus,
“presumes that when an individual is subject to deprivatory governmental action, he always has a
due process liberty interest both in fair and unprejudiced decision-making and in being treated
with respect and dignity.” Id.
As already discussed above, the Judge disregarded my request for continuance and issued a
tentative ruling on the motion for summary judgment, holding in favor of the Defendant. This

further amounted to a violation of my due process rights to fair hearing because the Judge
prevented me from getting an evidentiary hearing on an official record, which record I would
have used for appeal. Besides, the Judge did not even look at my Response to Defendant’s
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Further, the Judge knew that a court reporter
is not available on Mondays. However, the Judge refused to schedule the court dates for days
other than Mondays.
3. The Judge failed to address Defendant’s violation of applicable law regarding the
time limit to file an answer
According to Rule 3.110(d), responsive pleadings must be filed within thirty (30) days of the
filing of a Complaint, or within a 15-day extension as stipulated by the parties to the case.
In the Judge’s tentative ruling on my Motion for Summary Judgment, the Judge only noted that I
had prematurely filed the motion “only 8 days after Defendant Hoag answered.” However, the
Judge did not notice that the Defendant had filed their answer beyond the statutorily allowed
time limit of thirty (30) days. Contrary to the Judge’s statement, the Motion for Summary
Judgment was filed eight days after the Defendant’s untimely answer, and not eight days after
initial services. The parties had not stipulated that the Defendant could file the responsive
pleading any time after the thirty days.
4. The Judge failed to address the Defendant’s frivolous filings
The Defendant made frivolous filings, yet the Judge failed to address such filings. Frivolous" is
defined as "totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing
party." See Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5(b)(2). The "bad faith requirement of section 128.5 does not
impose a determination of evil motive. The concept of ‘harassment’ includes vexatious tactics
which, although literally authorized by statute or rule, go beyond that which is by any standard
appropriate under the circumstances." In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39
Cal.App.5th 124, 145-46 (Taeb). Further, an objection is frivolous where it can be said that it
indisputably has no merit, such that any reasonable attorney would agree that it is totally and
completely without merit. Corbett v. Hayward Dodge, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 915, 922.
By the Judge failing to address the Defendant’s frivolous filings, the Judge appeared to accept,
such frivolous conduct from the Defendant. Such frivolous filings include Defendant’s “Notice
of Ruling” (4 pages), filed on 07/05/2022; “Declaration in Support of Opposition” (7 pages) filed
on 07/18/2022; “Separate Statement” (9 pages) filed on 07/18/2022; “Opposition” (11 pages),
filed on 07/18/2022; “Declaration in Support of Opposition” (7 pages) filed on 07/18/2022;
“Notice of Intent to Introduce Documentary Evidence” (170 pages), filed on 07/18/2022.
It is also noteworthy that the Defendant had insufficiently served their opposition to the motion
for summary judgment. Specifically, the first page was missing in the service of the opposition.
The opposition further had a restaple. Plaintiff looked in the UPS envelope and the first page was
taped securely against the inside of the envelope.

5. I am prejudiced when the Judge, who is retired still handles my case
I assert that it amounts to prejudice when a retired judge handles a case. According to CCP §
170.6(a)(1), a judge shall not try a case if it is established that the judge is prejudiced against a
party or attorney. The said section 170.6 requires a different judge to be assigned in lieu of the
originally assigned one. See People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 421, 439; accord, Peracchi v.
Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 1248 ("Section 170.6 permits a party in civil and criminal actions to
move to disqualify an assigned trial judge on the basis of a simple allegation by the party or his
or her attorney that the judge is prejudiced against the party.").
The Judge, Richard Oberholzer stated that his last day as the presiding judge in the case would
be August 1, 2022. However, the Judge went ahead to preside over the case, and in the course
thereof, was biased towards the Defendant’s side. As already discussed above, the Judge: denied
my right to a court reporter, violated my due process right to a fair hearing by issuing a tentative
ruling before hearing my Response to Defendant’s Opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment, failed to address the Defendant’s failure to adhere to the 30-day time limit set for
responsive pleadings, and failed to address the Defendant’s frivolous filings. As such, the
Judge’s aforesaid conduct amounts to prejudice against me, which warrants the Judge’s recusal.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I aver that there are sufficient grounds to make a determination that Judge Richard
Oberholzer is biased and that there is prejudice in the case. For that reason, I pray that this
Commission issues an appropriate Order in the interest of justice, in my favor.
(I have attached relevant evidence herein)

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: ____________

______________________________
XXXX

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A- Request for Court Reporter

Exhibit B- Order granting fee waiver

Exhibit C- Tentative Ruling

Exhibit D- Case Docket

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )

 

 

Verified by MonsterInsights