12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Defendant the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) respectfullysubmits its opposition to plaintiff’s motion to shorten the time for defendant to respondto, and for the Court to consider, plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff Karen Golinski, a staff attorney of the Ninth Circuit, seeks a preliminaryinjunction and an order of mandamus against OPM premised on what plaintiff asserts is the binding nature of administrative orders issued by the Honorable Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in his capacity as an administrative hearing officer under the Ninth Circuit Employee Dispute Resolution (“EDR”) Plan. Thus, this case calls upon the Courtto review the nature of the orders rendered by Chief Judge Kozinski.
In 1998, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit approved an EDR plan that grantscircuit employees certain substantive rights and sets out a procedure for the enforcement of thoserights. See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Employment Dispute Resolution Plan(rev. ed. 2000) (“EDR plan”), Exhibit A to plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The plan sets forth a detailed administrative process for the resolution of employment disputesinvolving circuit employees. See id. at 1. After mandatory counseling and mediation, anemployee with an unresolved grievance may file a formal written complaint with the chief judgeof the relevant court. Id. at 1, 3, 5-7. The respondent identified in an EDR complaint must in allcases be “the employing office that would be responsible for redressing, correcting or abating theviolations(s) alleged in the complaint.” Id. In the event that the hearing officer finds a violationof a substantive right protected by the plan, he may award “a necessary and appropriate remedy,”including relief under the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596. EDR plan at 9-10.Plaintiff filed a complaint under the Ninth Circuit EDR Plan on October 2, 2008, seekingrelief from the decision of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“AOUSC”) denyingThe chief judge of a circuit presides over its judicial council, 28 U.S.C. § 332(a)(1),
which is established within each federal appellate court to “make all necessary and appropriateorders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its circuit,” id.§ 332(d)(1). Orders of the judicial council are binding on “[a]ll judicial officers and employeesof the circuit,” who “shall promptly carry [those orders] into effect.” Id. § 332(d)(2).
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s “Ex Parte Application For Order Shortening Time”4:10cv257SBA
Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document17 Filed02/02/10 Page2 of 6