Federal Judge Ignores Procedural Default, Raising Alarms Over Judicial Bias and Integrity
Summary
In the federal civil rights case Lathus v. Round Valley Justice Court et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-08233, a troubling pattern has emerged suggesting judicial favoritism and possible misconduct by District Judge Dominic W. Lanza. Despite a binding order from Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 105) requiring the defendants to respond to the original complaint by July 7, 2025, no response was filed. This failure to respond constitutes a clear procedural default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Yet, no default has been entered, and no show cause order has been issued.
Timeline of Events
June 24, 2025: Judge Metcalf issues a clear and binding order (Doc. 105) requiring a response to the original complaint by July 7, 2025.
July 7, 2025: Deadline passes with no response from the defendants.
Subsequent Days: No order was issued vacating or modifying Doc. 105.
Later: Judge Lanza treats the defendants as though they complied, despite no formal action excusing their failure to respond.
Legal Analysis
1. Federal Rules Violated
Rule 55(a): When a party fails to respond or defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, “the clerk must enter the party’s default.”
Rule 16(f): Allows sanctions against a party who fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order.
Rule 6(b)(1)(B): Extensions requested after a deadline require a showing of “excusable neglect.” None was provided.
2. Binding Nature of Doc. 105
Court orders are binding unless explicitly vacated or modified. See:
Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975): “Court orders are not suggestions.”
Hall v. Curran, 599 F.3d 70, 75 (1st Cir. 2010): Courts must not permit procedural nullification without express rulings.
3. Judicial Misconduct Indicators
Judge Lanza never vacated Doc. 105.
Judge Lanza permitted defendants to avoid procedural consequences.
This creates the appearance of favoritism and a two-tiered system of justice.
Broader Concerns
Judicial Gaslighting
By not formally vacating Doc. 105, Judge Lanza effectively misled the Plaintiff into believing the deadline was moot. This is an example of procedural gaslighting, where a judge’s actions contradict the record without explanation.
Comparison to Totalitarian Judicial Conduct
Courts under authoritarian regimes often neutralize dissent by bending procedure to insulate the state. When a federal judge ignores clear defaults and treats rules as advisory only for government actors, it dangerously echoes this history.
See:
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009): “There is a serious risk of actual bias when a judge has a history of acting in favor of one party.”
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955): “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.”
What Should Happen Now
Clerk should enter default under Rule 55(a).
Court should sanction defendants under Rule 16(f).
Judge Lanza should recuse himself, per 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), due to reasonable questions of impartiality.
The Ninth Circuit should conduct oversight, given the risk to the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Conclusion
No judge is above the rules. When federal orders are treated as optional, the entire system suffers. The law must be applied equally, not selectively, and procedural integrity must be upheld regardless of whether the defendant is a private citizen or a government official.
If this behavior stands unchallenged, it sets a precedent where courts themselves become complicit in injustice—and that is unacceptable in any constitutional republic.
Filed by:
/s/ Joseph William LathusPro Se PlaintiffCase No. 3:24-cv-08233
Federal Judge Ignores Procedural Default, Raising Alarms Over Judicial Bias and Integrity was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.