Jahanshahi v. Commission on Judicial Performance CA4/3

Filed 2/5/26 Jahanshahi v. Commission on Judicial Performance CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SHAHROUZ JAHANSHAHI,

Appellant, G063713

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21STCP00443)

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL OPINION PERFORMANCE,

Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Walter P. Schwarm, Judge. (Judge of the Orange Super. Ct., assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Requests for judicial notice. Denied.

Shahrouz Jahanshahi, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General, and Kenneth C. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. * * * Shahrouz Jahanshahi filed a third amended petition for writ of mandate, the operative petition, against the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP). The petition stemmed from the CJP’s summary denials of Jahanshahi’s multiple complaints made against judicial officers. Jahanshahi asked the trial court to order the CJP to “adequately investigate” each filed complaint. Jahanshahi also alleged that his inability to appeal the CJP’s denials violated his due process and equal protection rights. The trial court sustained the CJP’s demurrer ruling that the CJP did not have a mandatory duty to investigate every complaint it receives; therefore, the trial court could not order it to do so. As to the constitutional challenges, the trial court concluded there was no due process violation because Jahanshahi did not allege a protected liberty or property interest and that there was no equal protection violation because Jahanshahi and judicial officers (who can appeal CJP decisions) are not similarly situated. Jahanshahi appeals, raising the same arguments. We agree with the trial court in all respects and, therefore, affirm the judgment in favor of CJP. FACTS Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 provides a mechanism for an individual to seek an order compelling a public entity to perform a legal and ministerial duty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, subd. (a); Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 470, 484–485.) Jahanshahi filed such a petition alleging that on “several occasions [he] filed a complaint