LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Supreme Court’s refusal to remove Circuit Judge L.T. Simes from the bench despite two requests from the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission leaves Simes without a pursuable claim in federal court, a special judge said in throwing out Simes’ 2010 civil-rights lawsuit.
Simes, who is black, lives in Helena-West Helena and presides in the 1st Judicial District, purported that the commission and Executive Director David Stewart treated him differently from white judges in the course of its investigation and prosecution of two complaints against him.
In both cases, the independent commission recommended that the Supreme Court permanently remove Simes, the first black judge elected in the district, which encompasses Cross, Lee, Monroe, Phillips, St. Francis and Woodruff counties. But each time, the Supreme Court issued findings that both agreed and disagreed with the commission, and chose other sanctions instead of removing Simes from his position.
Simes first took the bench in 1997 and was re-elected in 2000, 2004 and 2010.
His federal lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of Nebraska after all the judges in the Eastern District of Arkansas, who are subject to the commission’s rules, recused from the case.
The lawsuit charged that the commission violated Simes’ rights to free speech, due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the First and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in its vigorous pursuit of severe sanctions against him as a result of complaints resolved at the Arkansas Supreme Court level in 2009 and 2011.
In the first case, known as the Chandler case, the commission unanimously sought Simes’ removal for practicing law while serving on the bench, which is a violation of judicial rules. The commission found that the judge continued representing a family estate known as the Quincy Chandler estate after taking the bench in 1997 by improperly collecting money associated with legal fees and rent. Simes said he never deposited or cashed any of the checks.
The high court declined the commission’s recommendation, however, and instead suspended Simes for the remainder of his existing term, which kept him off the bench through 2009 and 2010.
In the second case, known as the Weaver case, the commission recommended Simes’ removal for his handling of litigation between Johnny Weaver, a Helena-West Helena mayor, and its City Council related to police operations. An attorney for the mayor said he felt threatened with judicial sanctions during the proceedings for asking Simes to recuse himself because of an alleged conflict of interest.
The Supreme Court accepted some of the commission’s findings, modified others and rejected others, ultimately opting for a reprimand instead of removal, Bataillon noted.
In May 2010, during his suspension in the first case, Simes won re-election - without opposition - to a six-year term beginning in January 2011.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in the Weaver case was issued in May 2011, a stay that had been placed on the federal case, pending the outcome of the state case, was lifted.
Simes then amended his complaint, purporting that “he has had to operate in a racially hostile environment since the beginning of his judicial career,” according to Bataillon’s 24-page order, filed Thursday in Little Rock.
The special judge found that the commission, its members and its director were all immune from monetary damages in their judicial or quasi-judicial roles. Bataillon also found that Stewart was protected by prosecutorial immunity for his prosecutorial-like actions.
Bataillon went on to “comment on the allegations of race discrimination,” noting, “The court takes claims of racial discrimination very seriously.”
Because the Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed all of Simes’ allegations, “he received full judicial review,” Bataillon said, adding, “There is no claim that the Arkansas Supreme Court committed error or racially discriminated against the plaintiff. Consequently, the court finds there is no justiciable controversy before this court.”
The federal judge said that Simes appeared to be seeking “an advisory opinion for potential filings against him in the future.” He said that is beyond his authority, noting, “There is no remedy the court could give Judge Simes now, and this court certainly could not order prospective relief on an issue that might never arise.”
Arkansas, Pages 9 on 09/29/2012