Forte v. County of Merced et al

Filing 271

INFORMATIONAL ORDER on Plaintiff's 265 Request For Investigation and Order on 269 Motion to Stay, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/28/2014. (Plaintiffs Motion to Stay is hereby DENIED. The Magistrate Judges order of September 23, 2014, remains in full force and effect.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

EUGENE E. FORTE,

9
10

Plaintiff
v.

11

Defendants.

INFORMATIONAL ORDER ON
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
INVESTIGATION AND ORDER ON
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,

12

CASE NO. 1:11-CV- 0318 AWI BAM

Doc. #’s 265 & 269

13
14
15
16

I. Informational Order on Request for Investigation
On September 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge McAuliffe issued an order that: (1) granted the

17

motion of defendants County of Merced, et al. to compel, (2) denied Defendants’ motion to

18

dismiss without prejudice, (3) denied the motion of plaintiff Eugene Forte (“Plaintiff”) for judicial

19

notice and (4) stayed discovery pending Plaintiff’s production of a supplemental Rule 26

20

disclosure which was ordered to be filed and served not later than October 14, 2014. On October

21

8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Amended Request for Investigation by Senior Judge

22

Anthony Ishii of Overt Prejudice by Magistrate Judge McAuliffe” (the “Motion to Investigate”).

23

This is to inform Plaintiff that complaints about judicial conduct are governed by federal

24

statute and that District courts are without authority to deviate from the prescribed procedure. See

25

Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364. Under this act, any complaint

26

regarding the conduct of a district judge or magistrate judge is to be filed with the clerk of the

27

court of appeals for the circuit in which the district court is located. 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). Each

28

judicial circuit has developed rules and procedures for the filing of complaints concerning judicial

1

conduct. To access information regarding the procedure to be followed in this circuit, Plaintiff is

2

directed to:

3

http://uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/ConductAndDisability/JudicialConductDisability.aspx

4

Follow the lead to the Ninth Circuit for applicable rules and procedures.

5

Plaintiff is cautioned that the rules and procedures required by this circuit require that a

6

complainant acknowledge that he/she realizes that any order issued by the judge being complained

7

of remains in full force and effect regardless of the outcome of the complaint. In short, this

8

procedure may not be used to circumvent or reverse an order or admonition of the court. To the

9

extent that Plaintiff may have intended by his Motion to Investigate to request reconsideration of

10

the Magistrate Judge’s order of September 23, 2014, any such request is DENIED.

11

II. Order on Motion to Stay Proceedings

12

On October 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay proceedings, Docket Number 269 (the

13

“Motion to Stay”). Plaintiff’s purpose behind filing the motion to stay is to provide Plaintiff

14

“adequate time to prepare and file a supplemental pleading to manifest injustice.” Doc. # 269 at

15

1:26-27. The purpose of the proposed “supplemental pleading” is to reinstate claims against

16

erstwhile defendants that were long ago dismissed with prejudice from this action. Specifically,

17

Plaintiff seeks to “supplement” the complaint to allege essentially the same claims that were

18

previously dismissed on prior Defendants Morse, Turner, Fincher and others that Plaintiff alleges

19

were behind the “fraud on the court” that resulted in the dismissal of the criminal charges that had

20

been pending against Plaintiff in Merced County Superior Court. Despite repeated denials of

21

similar motions in the past – most recently in the Magistrate Judge’s order of September 23 – and

22

despite repeated explanations of why the claims Plaintiff seeks to supplement are not cognizable in

23

this court; Plaintiff persists.

24

The court’s prior rejection of Plaintiff’s claims against those he feels were responsible for

25

the dismissal of his criminal claims in Superior Court is based on two legal principles that have

26

not changed since the claims were originally dismissed. First, federal district courts have no

27

authority to supervise, control, or correct the legal or factual errors of state superior courts. To the

28

extent a litigant may seek relief from what he or she perceives to be a faulty, fraudulent, unlawful
2

1

or otherwise wrongful superior court decision, relief is available only from the state appellate

2

court except for one very limited circumstance. Federal district courts can provide relief from

3

proceedings in state courts if, and only if, the state court proceedings resulted in violations of

4

either the United States Constitution or a federal statute. See 42 U.S. § 1983. This concept of

5

“federalism” was adequately explained to Plaintiff in the court’s order of March 25, 2013, Docket

6

Number 118, and need not be repeated here. Second, Plaintiff has never articulated the

7

infringement of a constitutional or statutory federal right arising from the dismissal of the criminal

8

claims against him in the Superior Court. Plaintiff’s current Motion to Stay “to supplement his

9

pleading” is no exception.

10

Plaintiff’s major contention with regard to the proceedings in the Merced Superior Court is

11

that the previously dismissed Defendants conspired to commit fraud on the court by implementing

12

a scheme to use incompetent or “jury-rigged” testimony to persuade the Superior Court to dismiss

13

the criminal charges against Plaintiff based on a false finding that Plaintiff was not competent to

14

defend himself in a criminal proceeding pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code § 1370.2. The court has

15

previously explained that a defendant in a criminal case has no constitutional right to the

16

continuation of a prosecution against him. In the court’s order of January 31, 2014, the court

17

made clear that, for purposes of the Constitution or federal statute, there is no requirement that a

18

criminal prosecution, once instituted, be continued to and through trial. See Doc. # 202 at 4-5. In

19

the same order, the court also explained the limitations and narrowness of the Superior Court’s

20

ruling that Plaintiff was incompetent to stand trial as a defendant in a criminal matter and further

21

explained that this determination, like the discontinuance of his criminal prosecution, does not

22

raise any issue harm under the Constitution or under federal statute. Id.. The court has previously

23

explained, and now reiterates, that of all the harms that Plaintiff has alleged, the ones that are

24

cognizable in this court are current claims under the Fourth Amendment for arrest without

25

probable cause and unreasonable seizure.

26

From the content of Plaintiff’s current Motion to Stay and from the content of prior similar

27

motions, it appears to the court that Plaintiff is of the opinion that it is not so important what injury

28

was suffered, but rather how the injury came to be inflicted. Thus, in the present motion, it seems
3

1

as though Plaintiff believes he can revive the previously dismissed claims against the previously

2

dismissed Defendants by alleging facts to show that the proceedings in the Superior Court that

3

resulted in the termination of the criminal cases against him and the finding of Plaintiff’s

4

incapacity to stand trial were a result of “fraud on the court.” This is not the case. Plaintiff has

5

previously accused this court of being uncaring about the malfeasance of the actors involved with

6

his criminal cases and the fraud that was perpetrated by them in achieving the declaration of his

7

incompetence to stand trial. The court has previously informed Plaintiff, and now does so again,

8

that this court cannot address Plaintiff’s claims arising from the dismissal of the criminal cases

9

against him in Superior Court because this court lacks the jurisdiction to do so. Whether this court

10

is in agreement with, or utterly outraged by, the decisions of the Superior Court makes no

11

difference at all. This court cannot go where its jurisdictional powers do not exist.

12

Because further supplementation or amendment of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint to

13

add the claims and the defendants that Plaintiff has specified in his Motion to Stay is futile for the

14

reasons discussed above, the court will deny the motion.

15
16
17

THEREFORE, for the reasons discussed above Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is hereby
DENIED. The Magistrate Judge’s order of September 23, 2014, remains in full force and effect.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4