US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco
from the forum-selling dept
We've written a bit about Judge Alan Albright, the only judge in the US district court in Waco, Texas. Judge Albright, a former patent litigator, decided that, upon taking the bench, he'd become the friendliest court for patent cases in the entire country. He even went around advertising that patent plaintiff's should file there and they've taken him up on it in droves. Since he's the only judge in the district, all the cases get assigned to him and, at last count, more than 25% of new patent cases are all going to him. He's so busy with patent cases he had to hire a former patent troll lawyer as a magistrate judge to help him out.
He's also, somewhat famously, been pissing off the notoriously pro-patent appeals court for patent cases, the Federal Circuit, by refusing to rule on transfer requests to more appropriate districts, while making the process for patent defendants more expensive and cumbersome. It got so bad that even the generally pro-patent Senator Thom Tillis sent a couple of letters to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (who oversees the court system) and to the USPTO, about Albright's "forum selling."
It took a little while, but the Administrative Office of the US Courts, has finally responded to the letter sent by Tillis (and Senator Pat Leahy) to Justice Roberts, noting that it appears to be somewhat aware of the problems of Judge Albright.
From a long-standing national policy perspective, the Judicial Conference strongly supports the random assignment of cases and the notion that all district judges remain generalists.... Random case assignment is used in all federal courts and operates to safeguard the Judiciary’s autonomy while deterring judge-shopping and the assignment of cases based on the perceived merits or abilities of a particular judge. It bears mentioning that in September 2021, I submitted my Final Report to Congress pursuant to Section (1)(e) of the Patent Pilot Program in Certain District Courts Act, Pub. L. No. 111-349 (2011) counseling against extending the Patent Pilot Program due, in part, to the Judiciary’s longstanding position on random case assignment and to help ensure that all district judges remain generalists.
While admitting that district courts, including the ones in the Western District of Texas "have wide latitude to establish case assignment systems," the Administrative Office of the Courts still seems to recognize that there's a problem in Waco and will explore if anything can be done:
Given these varied divisional case assignment policies as well as the concerns that you have raised, I have asked the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, which has jurisdiction on matters affecting case management, to consider these issues and any recommendations that may be warranted.
That may sound rather muted, but it's still quite noteworthy. The US court system is generally resistant to changes, and just acknowledging that it understands the concerns of Tillis and Leahy, and will explore options already suggests that others in the federal judiciary recognize just how sketchy and corrupt-appearing Judge Albight's courtroom looks right now.
Furthermore, in his year end report on the state of the federal judiciary, Justice Roberts explicitly calls out Albright's activity (though he's too chickenshit to note that it's just Judge Albright who's the problem):
The third agenda topic I would like to highlight is an arcane but important matter of judicial administration: judicial assignment and venue for patent cases in federal trial court. Senators from both sides of the aisle have expressed concern that case assignment procedures allowing the party filing a case to select a division of a district court might, in effect, enable the plaintiff to select a particular judge to hear a case. Two important and sometimes competing values are at issue. First, the Judicial Conference has long supported the random assignment of cases and fostered the role of district judges as generalists capable of handling the full range of legal issues. But the Conference is also mindful that Congress has intentionally shaped the lower courts into districts and divisions codified by law so that litigants are served by federal judges tied to their communities. Reconciling these values is important to public confidence in the courts, and I have asked the Director of the Administrative Office, who serves as Secretary of the Judicial Conference, to put the issue before the Conference.
The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management is reviewing this matter and will report back to the full Conference. This issue of judicial administration provides another good example of a matter that self-governing bodies of judges from the front lines are in the best position to study and solve—and to work in partnership with Congress in the event change in the law is necessary.
This was one of only three specific topics he called out, so it seems pretty clear that he's well aware of how Albright has made a complete mockery of his courtroom.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alan albright, federal judiciary, forum selling, john roberts, patent trolls, patents, supreme court, waco
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's a pity they are so worried about how the bad cogs make the system look rather than removing the bad cogs.
Justice no longer is what it was intended to be & everyone pretends it was always like this.
The rich get off & the poor go to jail for hundreds of years for having a joint.
The system is completely unbalanced but the powers that be refuse to accept that.
We have a Judge shopping his court to those who will benefit greatly from his rulings, but there isn't enough will to put an immediate stop to it. There is no way anyone can claim this judges antics aren't showing clear bias & even a moron in a hurry can see that defendants will not get a fair hearing.
The rest of the system is content to slowly walk the wheels of justice to maybe sorta kinda suggest that he actually follow the rules while millions of dollars are extracted over some of the broadest stupidest ideas that never should have been awarded a patent...
The justice system won't help rich white folk, what chance do colored people stand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What mechanism do you believe "they" have for removing a federal district judge?
Jesus Christ, what is this, the 1930s?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It looks like there are at least a couple of mechanisms:
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/how-to-remove-a-federal-judge
In the case of Albright, it is clear that one of the available mechanisms needs to be activated ASAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While actually removing a judge is somewhat involved, it's pretty trivial to neuter a judge.
Just as "judge" Albright manipulates his jurisdiction policy to attract and keep the right kind of cases within his district, the federal judiciary could alter jurisdiction rules so that the East Texas district court does not have jurisdiction over anything at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
West Texas, not East. East Texas was the problem before Judge Albright took over in Waco.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"We have a Judge shopping his court to those who will benefit greatly from his rulings, but there isn't enough will to put an immediate stop to it. There is no way anyone can claim this judges antics aren't showing clear bias & even a moron in a hurry can see that defendants will not get a fair hearing."
The more I see of the US "justice" system the more I'm inclined to believe that Judge Roy Bean was the moral highlight of said system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slowly
The wheels of justice grind slowly, we've seen that with misbehaving lawyers (Prenda...). With misbehaving judges the problem will take even more time because of the presumption (in the legal system) that judges are integer. But anyhow it seems that the judiciary is looking for a way to solve this problem.
The optimist says that the issue will be solved eventually, the pessimist will say it already took too long. There will be time to restock on popcorn between the episodes in this saga.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crimes of omission
This failure to "name names" is a widespread and long-standing problem in the legal system, to the point that it is a standard practice and rarely deviated from. It serves no legitimate purpose and is used almost exclusively to provide a cloak of anonymity for misbehaving judges and prosecutors. It is one of many clear signs of a thoroughly corrupt legal system.
It is a significant impediment for those who attempt to research and document the corruption in the legal system. While the names can (usually) eventually be put with the corrupt and sometimes criminal actors, it is very tedious and time-consuming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crimes of omission
If you want the research done quickly and correctly, then all you need to do is contact your local chapter of MADD. (For those of you outside of the US, that's Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.) They have a great deal of experience in keeping tabs on judges who let drunk drivers go with nothing more than a small fine and some probation. They also track habitual offenders, and they don't pull punches when it comes to identifying theses perpetrators.
I personally know only one such researcher, and she's a real pistol, as the saying goes. She doesn't show up in court, she just supplies the info to others, some of whom are prosecutors. It's amazing how the fatalities caused by drunk drivers has decreased in the last 20 years. It's still too high, but nothing comes easy in this world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crimes of omission
MADD, while generally harmful, tends to confine itself to state court issues. That is where drunk drivers show up. They will offer you no useful information on Federal courts and patent troll promotions.
State court is where MADD and its fellow-travelers make little distinction between the 0.08% ``drunk'' who is a threat to no one, and the 0.18% drunk who ought to have stayed out of the car. At one time, the line was at 0.1, which was a more reasonable level, but the ``safe driving'' advocates keep pushing for lower.
MADD might be useful if they were more nuanced than Carrie Nation, but they are not. They, with their precursor, would bring back prohibition if only they could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crimes of omission
Yes, while MADD might be good at certain things, as many zealots are, their focus is extremely narrow. And they are, indeed, prohibitionist / abolitionist / zero - tolerance zealots. They have been known to oppose quite sensible measures that would have significantly reduced dangerously impaired driving because the measures were not "zero - tolerance" enough.
MADD is also apparently more interested in raising money, paying it's people, and promoting itself than actually increasing driving safety.
I would say they are clearly quite mad, but definitely not in the sense that they might think or appreciate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Changing things back from prior egregious changes, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A judge so bad even the pro-patent courts can't stand him. I'm starting to see why Hamilton breaks his Shiva Ayyadurai back to carry this guy's water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
test
test -- good job, keep those shields up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: test
Ooops! Got in on what was to be last try. So actually your usual ineffective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shiva Ayyadurai didn't invent email, blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: test
Test result: Spambot detected - flags deployed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CYA for Roberts
The article should probably note that Roberts's statement didn't happen in a vacuum; he's trying to fight off any attempt by Congress to provide even slight oversight of the courts, and this is him showing that, "See? We can police ourselves!"
Obviously, it's too little, too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CYA for Roberts
An attempt to dodge accountability and oversight would certainly make more sense than them just now realizing that there might be something problematic with Albright and how he's running his court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]