Case 1:17-cv-01894-ABJ Document 26 Filed 07/01/19 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE HON. JOHN R. ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:17-cv-01894-ABJ JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, et al., Defendants. JOINT STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order of March 4, 2019, the parties hereby submit this status report describing the status of proceedings before the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit. 1. On June 27, 2019, the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit issued an order dismissing the complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Adams, which is attached as Exhibit 1. The issuance of this order was consistent with the Judicial Council’s order of June 27, 2018, wherein it stated that it would review this matter within one year. 2. The Court has previously held Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on Mootness Grounds [ECF No. 20] in abeyance pending completion of the Judicial Council’s review of the underlying proceeding. 3. Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on Mootness Grounds be held in abeyance for a further 60 days to allow Plaintiff to consider his response. 4. Defendants maintain that the Court may presently decide Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on Mootness Grounds because the Judicial Council’s review of the matter has now concluded and the underlying complaint has been dismissed. If, however, the Court, out of an abundance of caution, were to continue to hold the motion in abeyance until after August 8, –1– Case 1:17-cv-01894-ABJ Document 26 Filed 07/01/19 Page 2 of 2 2019, when the time to petition for further review of the June 27, 2019 Order would run pursuant to Rule 22(c) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, Defendants would not object. In its June 27, 2019 Order, the Judicial Council “upon review conclude[d] that no further misconduct by Judge Adams has occurred.” The Judicial Council further stated that, as of June 27, 2019, its “jurisdiction over this matter is terminated, and the challenged requirements of the February 22, 2016 order, including the directive that Judge Adams undergo a mental health evaluation, are no longer in effect.” Should the Court desire a supplemental brief on the impact of the June 27, 2019 Order on the mootness analysis, Defendants are prepared to provide it as directed by the Court, if necessary after Judge Adams’s time to take any action in response to the Order has elapsed. Dated: July 1, 2019 Respectfully submitted, JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General /s/ Paul J. Orfanedes Robert D. Popper D.C. Bar No. 1023592 Paul J. Orfanedes D.C. Bar No. 429716 425 Third Street SW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024 (202) 646-5172 JENNIFER D. RICKETTS Director Federal Programs Branch CHRISTOPHER R. HALL Assistant Director Federal Programs Branch Counsel for Plaintiff /s/ M. Andrew Zee M. ANDREW ZEE Trial Attorney (California Bar No. 272510) United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6646 m.andrew.zee@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendants –2– Case Document 26-1 Filed 07/01/19 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 1 Case Document 26-1 Filed 07/01/19 Page 2 of 2 06-13-90009 JUN 2 7 2019 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OFFBCE OF THE OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CIRCUBT EXECUTIVE In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct ORDER BEFORE: COLE, Chief Circuit Judge, MOORE, SUTTON, KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, DONALD and BUSH, Circuit Judges; HOOD, GAUGHAN, CALDWELL, JONKER, ANDERSON, REEVES, STIVERS, and CRENSHAW, Chief District Judges.1 This matter is before the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit, pursuant to its June 27, 2018 order regarding the misconduct complaint against Judge John R. Adams of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As explained in the June 2018 order, the Judicial Council imposed no further sanctions and instead retained jurisdiction to review the matter in one year. Consistent with that directive, the Judicial Council upon review concludes that no further misconduct by Judge Adams has occurred. Thus, the Judicial Council hereby dismisses the complaint against Judge Adams, leaving in place the prior unchallenged components of the original misconduct order of February 22, 2016, and noting that the judges of the Northern District of Ohio unanimously favor this result. I As of the date of this order, the Judicial Council?s jurisdiction over this matter is terminated, and the challenged requirements of the February 22, 2016 order, including the directive that Judge Adams undergo a mental health evaluation, are no longer in effect. Dated: June 27, 2019 IT IS SO ORDERED Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Chief District Judge, recused himself ?om this matter; Richard A. Grif?n and Amul R. Thapar, Circuit Judges, abstained; Julia S. Gibbons, Circuit Judge, was unavailable to participate.