Told three times in writing how Husband's case was being handled, Chief Judge Sabella's office answered that he "does not possess any independent investigative powers," that he "is unable to take any action on your behalf," and sent Husband back to the judge he was reporting, or to an appeal.
Art. V, s. 2(d) and Rule 2.215(b)(2) give Chief Judge Sabella "administrative supervision over all judges and court personnel" in the circuit. Rule 2.215(b)(7) requires him to "regularly examine the dockets" and "require a report on the status of the matters on the dockets." Three notices on one case called for exactly that: examine the 24-DR-001150 docket, require the status report, and tell Husband what was done. That duty needs no investigative power and decides no motion.
- Jan. 22 to March 11, 2025: three emails to Chief Judge Sabella. The Feb. 12 letter, filed in the case that morning, reported that the court ruled on his motion "barely a day before the hearing," "depriving me of the right to even create a record," and said: "I'm now turning back to you for help, Judge Sabella." N-025Read them: Letter to Chief Judge Sabella, Feb. 12, 2025 (family case Doc 120) (link pending redacted copy)
- March 13, 2025: General Counsel Christian N. Katchuk confirmed all three and wrote: "the chief judge does not possess any independent investigative powers." Husband's concerns "should be addressed by filing an appropriate motion in the case with the Clerk of the Circuit Court or through the utilization of the appellate court process." And: "Judge Sabella is unable to take any action on your behalf in this matter." N-025Read them: Katchuk letter, March 13, 2025 (family case Doc 154) (link pending redacted copy)
- Oct. 14 to Dec. 18, 2025: Husband asked for the records of how the chief judge's office handled his correspondence on the case. The answer: "1,122 emails have been identified that may be responsive," and a deposit of $512.20 before anyone would review them. N-068What administrative step did the chief judge take on the 24-DR-001150 docket after March 13, 2025?
Chief Judge Christopher C. Sabella (received all three notices; copied on the answer). Christian N. Katchuk, General Counsel, Administrative Office of the Courts (the March 13, 2025 letter). Three notices, one answer, one docket. Every duty here arises from Article V and Rule 2.215 on these notices alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. V, s. 2(d), Fla. Const.: "The chief judge shall be responsible for the administrative supervision of the circuit courts and county courts in his circuit." Rule 2.215(b)(7): the chief judge "must ... regularly examine the dockets of the courts under the chief judge's administrative supervision, and require a report on the status of the matters on the dockets," and "may take action as necessary to make the dockets current."
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
Husband put the chief judge on notice three times: by email on January 22, 2025, by letter on February 12, 2025, and again on March 11, 2025. The March 13, 2025 answer from the Administrative Office of the Courts General Counsel confirmed receipt of all three, stating "the chief judge does not possess any independent investigative powers," and directing him instead to file a motion in the case or pursue the appellate process. The closing position was that Judge Sabella is "unable to take any action on your behalf in this matter." The remedies named were the case itself and the appeal, the judge complained of and the court that had already declined the record. Nothing followed the March 13, 2025 answer, and nothing has followed in the seventeen months since. [IGNORED: receipt acknowledged, then no administrative response]
Rule 2.215(b) places administrative supervision of a circuit's judges and dockets on its chief judge, a duty that exists because a litigant cannot supervise the judge assigned to him. Written receipt plus a stated position of inability puts the office on both sides of the record: it knew, it wrote back, and it fixed its position in writing. Being unable to act “on your behalf” is a different thing from being unable to examine a docket and require a report.
told three times in writing that its own circuit had a problem, the chief judge's office answered that it has no investigative powers and pointed Husband back to the judge he was complaining about
- Doc 120 (letter of 2/12/25) with Docs 121 to 122 (exhibit chain), per the V8 report.
- Doc 154 (Katchuk, 3/13/25), fully transcribed by eye (V11), which is the source of all three quoted sentences and of the confirmation that the 1/22, 2/12 and 3/11 emails were received.
- Interval anchors, stated because the sentence turns on which one is used: from the 3/13/25 answer to 8/20/26 is seventeen months and seven days; from the first notice of 1/22/25 to the same date is eighteen months and twenty-nine days. The prose runs from the answer.
Full card on the map · Court Oversight and Conflict Judges in the Sixth Circuit page