Federal district court judge James G. Carr harbors a racial hatred against Hispanics. The only other reason for the demonstrable behavior of this judge is that he is unable to read with an acceptable level of comprehension ability.
On September 18, 1997 Judge Carr dismissed Cumpian v. Nye, case no. 3:97 CV 7569, in which a young Hispanic man sued police officers for blocking his access to his lawyer and interrogating him until he confessed.
As is well-known to any practicing attorney, our "government of laws, and not of men," Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803), is actually a government of chance. I.e., as attorney Roy Cohn once said, "I don't care what the law is, just tell me who the judge is." N.Y. Times.
Judge Carr could have "thrown out" the Cumpian case for any reason he desired. Denying three out of four litigants their "day in court" in and simply "throwing them out" for one reason or another (whether legitimate or not) is simply "business as usual" in the federal courts these days. See Issacharoff and Lowenstein, Second Thoughts About Summary Judgment, 100 Yale Law Journal 73 (1990).
Judge Carr's rulings indicate a blatant (and unacceptable ) hostility to Hispanics and other minorities.
Judge Carr's Judgment Entry and Order of September 18, 1997 covers four (4) pages addressing 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a statute that concerns proceedings in forma pauperis (no filing fees paid). Apparently Judge Carr merely assumed that, seeing a Hispanic surname as the plaintiff in the case, he was dealing with a "free-loader." Had he bothered to read the case he would have seen that the first entry on the master docket sheet in that action stated, "8/12/97--FILING FEE: on 8/12/97 in the amount of $150.00, receipt #302272."
Judge Carr's bias and quirkiness has not gone unnoticed:
"He's a little goofy. He gets things wrong sometimes, though. Sometimes he'll make correct statements but really lose sight of the big picture. Lawyers need to help him get to the right place. He doesn't always have the best judgment." "He's not very good at recalling proceedings and remembering what's happened from appearance to appearance." " . . . I have to say that I think he is very biased in favor of law enforcement. He just won't allow for the fact that sometimes these guys inaccurately convey what happened, which is bothersome. Also, he's sensitive to due process--so long as no one is going to get acquitted." "He has a very distinct pro-law enforcement bent." "I think he tries to be fair, but he favors the government." -- "Lawyers' Evaluation" in I Almanac of the Federal Judiciary 48.6th Circuit (1998).
Nor does the incompetence of this judge seem to have gone unnoticed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, though how much help one can expect from a Circuit Court of Appeals that approves of and makes light of the rape of defenseless women by a corrupt state judge is certainly open to question.
In a Westlaw computer search of cases in which Judge Carr has been involved, Judge Carr's opinions have been unpublished over ninety (90) times out of 122 cases that made their way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Apparently the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is ashamed of what this judge does three times out of four.
The cases that the Sixth Circuit has authorized for publication, even when Judge Carr was affirmed, aren't much better:
In Beamon v. Brown, 125 F. 3d 965 (6th Cir. 1997) Judge Carr refused to certify a class action and denied relief to honorably discharged veterans in dispute with the V.A. Judge Carr himself apparently has never served his country in the military. The message Judge Carr sent to our veterans was simply this: waiting seven years for benefits is acceptable. After serving your country and your usefulness to society is over, maybe you leeches will just give up, go away and become homeless.
In Ferencz v. Hairston, 119 F.3d 1244 (6th Cir. 1997) Judge Carr's refusal of due process to contractors was acceptable.
In United States v. Khalife, 106 F.3d 1300 (6th Cir. 1997) Judge Carr, a district judge, sat as an appeals judge ("sitting by designation") on this one. Having a judge as incompetent and biased as Judge Carr sitting on a federal Circuit Court of Appeals with only a 3% chance of getting Supreme Court review is a disturbing thought. For other "sitting by designation" cases of Judge Carr see also Muse v. International Business Machines Corp., 103 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 1996), United States v. Keeton, 101 F.3d 48 (6th Cir. 1996), Prestige Cas. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 99 F.3d 1340 (6th Cir. 1996), United States v. Jinadu, 98 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 1996), Bell v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 105 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 1996), Stack v. Killian, 96 F.3d 159 (6th Cir. 1996) (no section 1983 relief for woman running "no-kill" animal shelter when police killed 77 of her animals).
Even scarier is the idea that such a biased and quirky judge should be allowed to write an Appeals Court opinion, see Workmon v. Publishers Clearing House, 118 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 1997). Fortunately, that case was so simple (Workmon claimed PCH owed him $10 million, based on, "You may already hold the winning number . . . ") and the district court judge had already done the work that even Judge Carr's incompetence couldn't have bungled.
Firsdon v. United States, 95 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 1996) (bias in favor of I.R.S.).
In Vectur Research v. Howard & Howard Attys P.C., 76 F.3d 692 (6th Cir. 1996) as was to be expected, Judge Carr and the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of fellow attorneys. Judges and attorneys belong to the same Bar Association.
In Schaffer v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., 74 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 1996) there was no relief for the families of farmers who drowned in a manure pit.
In Simpson v. Diversitech General, Inc., 945 F.2d 156 (6th Cir. 1991) Judge Carr predictably held that the discharge of an African American employee for racial reasons was acceptable. This was reversed and remanded. Ironically, in a remarkably similar case in an unpublished opinion, Stanton v. Allied Signal, Inc., Autolite Division, Case No. 96-3647, the same legal issues were found against Arthur Stanton.
I.e., a "government of chance."
In United States v. Szymkowiak, 727 F.2d 95 (6th Cir. 1984) Judge, then Magistrate Carr, found that a firearm had been found in "plain view" (a fully automatic Colt AR-15) during a police search for items of jewelry and a television set (which they didn't find). The conviction was vacated.
I.e., in this case Judge Carr demonstrated that he understood neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Second (though in the latter respect he has plenty of other federal judges for company, see Metcalf v. Martin, Civ. No. 1: 97 CV 756 (1996).
It is obvious that this biased, eccentric and incompetent federal judge is being "groomed" for a position on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly even the United States Supreme Court.
The public has lost enough confidence in the federal judiciary as it is. Judge Carr is so unprincipled, biased and incompetent he should be impeached, not promoted.