Why Jenkins Wants to Leave the Federal Bench

For months, U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins has kept quiet about his reasons for wanting to quit the federal bench and join the California appellate courts.

But a little more insight came today when the state’s Judicial Council released Jenkins’ official application form a day ahead of his confirmation hearing for a seat on San Francisco’s First District Court of Appeal.

Sadly enough, there were no juicy explanations as to why he wants to fly the federal coop, such as a personal clash with a fellow federal judge or a complete burnout on the district court system. Hell, Jenkins even denied ever having done drugs, unlike California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, who admitted in his 1999 application that he’d tried pot in college.

Jenkins, 54, simply wanted a change of pace — and a little more judicial power — after having served on the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California for the last 11 years, and eight years as a state court judge in Alameda County.

“The opportunity to apply the law, as a trial judge, to complicated factual scenarios which arise in a diverse society has been both challenging and rewarding,” he wrote. “However, after [several] years as a trial judge, I seek the opportunity to view the law from a different vantage point — that of an appellate judge.

“Because appellate jurists are afforded the unique opportunity to both develop and apply the rule of law in cases assigned to them,” he continued, “they necessarily have the opportunity to make a broader contribution to the judiciary and the people it serves.”

Jenkins also stressed he could bring to the appellate court the experiences of a black man raised in a working-class San Francisco neighborhood “by parents who valued education, believed in God and taught their children about the importance of public service.”

“The broad and diverse nature of my personal and professional life experiences,” he wrote, “will assist me in authoring legal opinions — irrespective of race or social status of the litigants — that will promote respect for the law as a discipline that brings and binds people together in a diverse society.”

Jenkins cited an impressive list of references: California Supreme Court Justice Carol Corrigan, U.S. District Judge Saundra Armstrong, First District Administrative Presiding Justice William McGuiness, Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Lois Haight and Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Johnnie Rawlinson.

Nonetheless, Jenkins’ confirmation hearing — through which he’s expected to fly with ease — isn’t going to be a complete love fest. Dongxiao Yue, a businessman from San Leandro, plans to speak in opposition to the confirmation, apparently because Jenkins last year dismissed a contract suit Yue brought as a pro per.

Yue accuses Jenkins of lacking integrity and competence, and engaging in abusive behavior, uncontrollable anger and apparent bias.

It’s kind of reminiscent of Justice Corrigan’s 2006 confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court. An angry pro per showed up there too, spoke his piece and then unexpectedly shook Corrigan’s hand afterward.

—  Mike McKee

Comments

[John Andersen]

I was sentenced to 48 months in Federal Prison By the Honorable Judge Jenkins in 2003. I made at least 15 court apperances before him and grew to respect him as a tough but fair Judge. He was always calm and spoke clearly and loud enough to be heard throughout the court room. The last court apperance before sentencing he ask me if I understood by pleading guilty he was not bound by any plea deal and could give me the maximum life in prison and I would have wavied my right to appeal he scared the shit out of me. He did the right thing 48 months for a first time felony drug conviction is pleanty. I wish him the best in whatever he wants to do.