Court Order of Federal Judge David O. Carter Appealed In Civil Rights Claim by Pro Se Litigant, Erin Baldwin

December 21, 2011 § Leave a comment

 

ERIN K. BALDWIN, an Indiviudal, PLAINTIFF PRO SE   v.

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., 

and DOES 1-10, inclusive,  Defendants.

Case No.  5:11-CV-01300-DOC

United States District Court Judge David O. Carter Presiding

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF APPEAL OF

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER’S

DECEMBER 2, 2011 ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:

            1.         Plaintiff, Erin K. Baldwin, appears to file this Notice of Appeal of the December 2, 2011 Order of The Honorable David O. Carter, entitled, “Denying Plaintiff Leave To Amend And Plaintiff’s Request For Declaratory Judgment And Explanation Of The Basis Of Adverse Findings.”

            2.         In accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(a)(1)(A), this Appeal is timely filed within thirty (30) days of the date of the Order, even though Plaintiff is entitled to sixty (60) days pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1)(B).  However, since Plaintiff has not, to date, served the Summons and Complaint on the two federal officers named in her Complaint (i.e., U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney and U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri N. Pym) Plaintiff voluntarily adheres to the shorter of the two rules.

            3.         Events leading up to this Notice of Appeal are as follows:

                        a.         On October 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed, “Notice to the Court of Communication Constituting Threat of Arrest and Loss of Liberty From Defendants Acting Under Color of State Law and Named in Section 1983 Complaint Based on Unconstitutional Court Order and Contempt Charges Thereon.”

                        b.         On November 15, 2011, Judge David O. Carter’s Courtroom Deputy, Dwayne Roberts, contacted Plaintiff and requested a Proposed Order for her October 28, 2011 “Notice to the Court, et al.” (described in “a.,” supra).                                    

                        c.         On November 16, 2011, pursuant to Mr. Roberts’ instructions, Plaintiff emailed the Proposed Order to chambers.

                        d.         On November 17, 2011, pursuant to Judge Carter’s Courtroom Procedures, Plaintiff lodged a mandatory chambers copy of the Proposed Order with the Court.

                        e.         On November 22, 2011, Judge Carter denied all of Plaintiff’s requests contained in the Proposed Order (that he had requested five days earlier).  The form and content of this “denial” was odd and unbefitting the formality of a federal court.  Plaintiff had become accustomed to receiving a “Civil Minute Order” in response to other Proposed Orders and Motions taken under submission.

                        f.          However, in this case, the Court simply uploaded Plaintiff’s November 17, 2011 Proposed Order to PACER, stamped “DENIED” on its face and blacked out Judge David O. Carter’s initials in the case number.  On the last page of the Proposed Order there appeared three stamps bearing the inscription, “Denied by Order of David O. Carter, United States District Judge on … [then a blank line on which to enter the date].”  However, no date, signature, initials, or any other authenticating endorsement was included.  See:  Order Re Notice to Court DENIED

We found a random sample of Carter’s “Denied” stamp and on this one his initials are not blacked out …..  DENIED Stamp DOC Order

                        g.         On November 28, 2011, in response to the “denial” set forth in “e.” and “f.,” supra, Plaintiff filed, “Plaintiff’s Request For: (1) An Explanation of Adverse Findings Pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Doctrine of Fundamental Fairness; (2) Leave to Amended the ‘Corrected’ Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Relevant Case Law; and (3) Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202, Implemented Through Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

            4.         On December 2, 2011, Judge Carter once again denied all of Plaintiff’s requests, many of which were “requested” out of respect for the Court but for which Plaintiff is entitled under the United States Constitution.  The form and content of the Order was that which Plaintiff had become accustomed.  It stated:

“PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EXPLANATION OF THE BASIS OF ADVERSE FINDINGS:            

            “Before the Court is a Request for Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s “Corrected” Second Amended Complaint, Request for a Declaratory Judgment, and Request for Explanation of the Basis of Adverse Findings (“Motion”) (Docket 23) filed by Plaintiff Erin K. Baldwin (“Plaintiff”).          

            “First, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend her “corrected” Second Amended Complaint is DENIED, as Plaintiff’s rambling set of facts in the Motion 17-24 provide no support for granting such a request. Plaintiff has simply not explained why any amendment is necessary.           

            “Second, Plaintiff’s Request for a Declaratory Judgment is DENIED because Plaintiff does not clearly explain what she means by a “Declaratory Judgment that sets forth the rights and responsibilities of the parties.” Motion, 12. This vague request is not sufficient grounds for any action by the Court.          

            “Third, Plaintiff requests a variety of “explanations of adverse findings” in conjunction with the Court’s previous denial of Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction (Docket 22). The Court has already denied each of Plaintiff’s requests in its November 22, 2011 Order. [1]           

            “The Court’s stamp of “Denied” is not a “prank,” as Plaintiff alleges but simply means of stating that Plaintiff provided no factual or legal support sufficient to grant her motion in any respect. Plaintiff should be aware that the “Denied” stamp is a valid exercise of the Court’s power and is a legitimate order, should she encounter it in the future.  

            The facts have not changed since the Court’s previous denial of Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. The Court understands and is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s feeling that she was wronged by a multitude of parties but the Court is unable to grant motions for preliminary injunctions that are not warranted by facts or law.           

            “Plaintiff has yet to provide any valid explanation that would cause the Court to take action in any of the matters listed in Plaintiff’s Motion. To the extent this explanation serves to explain the adverse findings in the Court’s November 22, 2011 Order, Plaintiff’s request is granted; but to the extent Plaintiff seeks a detailed explanation on each of her numerous claims in the preliminary injunction,[2] her request is denied.           

            “The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.”

            5.         Plaintiff hereby appeals the aforementioned Order of the Court based on deliberate violations of her constitutional rights, the right to equal protection under the law as a pro se and indigent litigant, and the complete disregard of Plaintiff’s right to fundamental fairness.

            6.         Plaintiff hereby sets forth a preliminary Statement of Issues and reserves the right to amend said statement in her forthcoming Appellant’s Brief.

                        a.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request for equal privilege and protection under the law as a pro se, indigent litigant.

                        b.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request for the same rights and privileges granted to plaintiffs with legal representation.

                        c.         Whether the District Court erred in classifying Plaintiff’s §1983 Civil Rights Complaint a “194 Case.”

                        d.         Whether the District Court erred in requiring Plaintiff to submit to mandatory alternative dispute resolution. 

                        e.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to bring her constitutional claims before an Article III District Court Judge.

                        f.          Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to withhold consent to a U.S. Magistrate Judge.

                        g.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information about her own case regarding the status of U.S. Magistrate Judge Pym’s Orders post-recusal.

                        h.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information about the identity of the judicial officer assigned to her case following the recusal of Magistrate Pym.

                        i.          Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request for an explanation of the basis of adverse findings.

                        j.          Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to recover her property unlawfully searched and seized from Plaintiff on June 19, 2009.

                        k.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to recover her property unlawfully searched and seized from Plaintiff on or about August 31, 2009.

                        l.          Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to recover her property unlawfully searched and seized from Plaintiff on February 25, 2010.                      

                        m.        Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to present all triable issues of fact to a jury prior to a court hearing on matters of law.

                        n.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request for effective assistance of counsel at the expense of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 83.11.

                        o.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff leave to amend her ‘Corrected’ Second Amended Complaint.

                        p.           Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff protection against ongoing post-Complaint retaliatory acts by defendants acting under color of state law.

                        q.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff a stay in the underlying Superior Court contempt case until Plaintiff’s §1983 case is complete.

                        r.          Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to exclude the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine as an affirmative defense in a dispositive motion to dismiss until the validity of the underlying permanent injunctions can be determined.

                        s.          Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to exclude the Younger Abstention Doctrine as an affirmative defense in a dispositive motion to dismiss until the validity of the underlying permanent injunctions can be determined.

                        t.          Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to recall the retaliatory bench warrant issued by Judge Franz E. Miller on August 18, 2011, two days after he was served with Plaintiff’s §1983 Complaint.

                        u.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request for a Declaration of Rights to promote efficiency and prevent complex case confusion.

                        v.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to be self-representing by denying Plaintiff’s request to disqualify the Orange County Public Defender due to fraud upon the court.

                        w.        Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to recover all Brady evidence, files, documents, pleadings, et al., currently in the possession of the Orange County Public Defender.

                        x.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request for a cap on statutes of limitation and equitable tolling.

                        y.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff formal rulings to pleadings filed in this present action.

                        z.         Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information regarding the identity of the U.S. Attorney assigned to represent The Honorable Judge Cormac J. Carney as a defendant in this action.

                        aa.        Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information regarding the identity of the U.S. Attorney assigned to represent The Honorable Magistrate Judge Sheri N. Pym as a defendant in this action.

                        bb.       Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information regarding the purpose of transmitting Plaintiff’s documents to Darryl Musick, Information Specialist, U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. 

                        cc.        Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information regarding the status of Attorney Sarah L. Overton as counsel of record for Defendant Judge Franz E. Miller after she was named a defendant in this case. 

                        dd.       Whether the District Court erred in denying all pro se, indigent litigants equal privilege and protection under the law by way of its inconsistent, contradictory and confusing General Orders and Local Rules.

                        ee.        Whether the District Court erred in presenting to the public General Orders and Local Rules contrary to the approved and mandated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

                        ff.        Whether the District Court erred in maintaining a pro se clinic that distributes misleading and detrimental information to pro se litigants.

Dated:  December 19, 2011                            Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        ____________________________

                                                                        Erin K. Baldwin


[1]               Plaintiff is entitled to an explanation of the basis of adverse findings when issues presented to this Court represent violations of her constitutional rights.  There was no explanation within the alleged “November 22, 2011 Order.”  In fact, there was no indication that this Order was even made by Judge David O. Carter at all.  (See,¶3d(i-iii)., supra.)

[2]               Judge Carter’s December 2, 2011 Order states: “Plaintiff seeks a detailed explanation on each of her numerous claims in the preliminary injunction…”  Plaintiff had no “claims in the preliminary injunction” because the Court would not grant Plaintiff a preliminary injunction.

Advertisements

Tagged: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Court Order of Federal Judge David O. Carter Appealed In Civil Rights Claim by Pro Se Litigant, Erin Baldwin at cacorruptionwatch.

meta

%d bloggers like this: