​Inyo County Judge Susanne Rizo Publicly Admonished by State Commission

​By Tyler Beadle

​INDEPENDENCE, CA—

​On October 29, 2025, the California Commission on Judicial Performance issued a public admonishment against Inyo County Superior Court Judge Susanne M. Rizo today in a 13-page decision. Rizo has served on the bench since 2021. The commission found Rizo filed two State Bar complaints on July 5, 2024, against Court Executive Officer Pamela Foster and Court Operations Manager Lindsay Eropkin. She accused them of the unauthorized practice of law for questioning her directives on ICWA notice procedures in probate guardianship cases and on handling traffic dismissals. Rizo also claimed Presiding Judge Stephen Place, the only other judge in Inyo County, was aiding and abetting the alleged misconduct. She told the State Bar she hoped the individuals would be fully prosecuted.

​The State Bar dismissed both complaints on August 28, 2024, finding no evidence of wrongdoing. The commission determined the filings were retaliatory, lacked good faith, and followed staff concerns about Rizo’s own rulings.

​On June 18, 2024, Foster described covering Rizo’s calendar for a medical appointment as problematic due to short notice. Rizo responded with a volatile email to Presiding Judge Place, accusing the court of gender discrimination and demanding an investigation. She informed Foster and Eropkin that she was retaining counsel and would copy her attorney on all future emails.

​The commission documented three instances of Rizo discussing active cases in the clerk’s office area where she could be overheard. In Rinkevich v. Hyles in January 2024, Rizo expressed distress about a child custody emergency. The mother, standing outside, overheard and began crying. Rizo recused herself immediately. In Haskin v. Daugherty in July 2024, Rizo briefed Judge Place about a unlawful detainer case. The respondent was dating a court clerk. In C.Y.C. v. L.B., Rizo asked aloud, “Will this case ever die?”

​In People v. William Calderon Jauregui in July 2022, Rizo dismissed a traffic citation because she was on assignment in traffic court and lacked resources to research the defendant’s speedy trial claim. She had been a judge for 18 months at the time. Also, on February 25, 2025, Rizo signed a probable cause declaration for the arrest of Angel Jacoba Schat. She then filed her own disqualification from the case because Schat’s father, Erick Schat, donated $3,000 to her 2020 judicial campaign. It was one of only two outside contributions she reported. The commission cited canon commentary that disqualified judges cannot take any action, even pre-filing probable cause reviews.

​The commission noted Rizo admitted most misconduct and expressed regret in some areas. However, it emphasized the pattern of behavior created a contentious atmosphere in a small rural court, appeared vindictive, and harmed staff morale and public confidence. Ten commissioners voted for the public admonishment. One did not participate. Rizo waived formal hearings and Supreme Court review.

​What does this mean for the admonished county judge?  The CJP chose to formally admonish but not remove from office Judge Rizo.

​The full decision is available at cjp.ca.gov. Questions about this article? Email me at [email protected].