Public Decisions Database
This database contains decisions on all public judicial disciplinary cases since the inception of the commission in 1960. Cases not involving public charges or public discipline remain confidential under the California Constitution and the commission’s rules.
Pursuant to amendments to the Constitution, which took effect in March 1995, the commission is authorized to impose all disciplinary sanctions, subject to discretionary review by the Supreme Court. Prior to that, the Supreme Court had the authority to censure or remove judges from office upon recommendation by the commission.
Case Profile
New Search| First Name | Enrique |
| Last Name | Monguia |
| Title | Judge |
| Inquiry No. | |
| Court Level | Superior Court |
| County/Appellate District | Los Angeles |
| Discipline/Determination | Public Admonishment |
| Decision By | Commission |
| Date of Decision | 08/28/2025 |
| Method of Resolution | |
| Types of Misconduct | Bias/appearance of bias toward a particular class Bias/appearance of bias not directed toward a particular class Demeanor/decorum Ex parte communications Failure to ensure rights On-bench abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties |
| Petition For Review | |
| Summary | The commission publicly admonished Judge Monguia for multiple instances of misconduct, committed over four and one-half years. Between 2019 and 2024, Judge Monguia made public remarks in the courtroom threatening to “shoot” people or have people “shot” by his bailiff. Judge Monguia also engaged in a pattern of making improper remarks, including remarks that were discourteous and gave the appearance of bias, to a crime victim, prospective jurors, defendants, attorneys, and others. Some of Judge Monguia’s remarks gave the appearance of prejudgment, embroilment, and bias based on gender and ethnicity. On at least one occasion, the judge baselessly blamed an adjudicated victim of domestic violence. In other instances, the judge’s comments had the potential to interfere with attorney-client relationships. In one case, Judge Monguia remanded a defendant without counsel, without allowing her an opportunity to be heard, and without inquiring into a plan for custody of her young child who was present with her in court. Judge Monguia’s misconduct caused the chaotic separation of the child from her mother. In another case, Judge Monguia engaged in an ex parte communication and thereafter declared a doubt of competence and suspended a self-represented defendant’s criminal proceedings, without appointing counsel. Judge Monguia’s failure to timely appoint counsel caused delay in the case, prolonging the time the defendant spent in custody. |
| Documents | [ DECISION ] |