No Standing To Appeal

A complainant who filed a judicial misconduct claim lacks standing to appeal dismissal of the allegations, according to a recent unpublished decision of the Nevada Supreme Court

Petitioner failed to demonstrate he has standing because any investigation done on his complaints filed with the Commission is to benefit the public, not petitioner individually. See In re Halverson, 123 Nev. 493, 514, 169 P.3d 1161, 1175 (2007) (recognizing that the Commission’s duty is to “protect the public upon an investigation revealing a current, emergent threat to the judiciary”); cf. Cotton v. Steele, 587 N.W.2d 693, 699 (Neb. 1999) (noting that whether an attorney is disciplined as a result of a client grievance to a disciplinary board neither “confers any legally cognizable
benefit [nor] causes any legally cognizable injury” to the client). And petitioner has not shown that the Commission refused to do any act required by law. See State Bar of Nev. v. List, 97 Nev. 367, 368, 632 P.2d 341, 342 (1981) (recognizing that “any citizen” could seek extraordinary writ relief to compel the governor to perform a duty required by law); NRS 1.4657(1)-(2) (requiring the Commission to examine complaints filed before it for “objectively verifiable evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that a judge committed misconduct” and, if the complaint contains no such allegations, requiring the Commission to dismiss it). 

The case is GREGORY O. GARMONG, Petitioner, vs. NEVADA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, Respondent. (Mike Frisch)