Martinez v. Lopez et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISREGARDING Plaintiff's Notice and Notice of Rules of Court-Due Process signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/8/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL MARTINEZ, 14 15 ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE AND NOTICE OF RULES OF COURT-DUE PROCESS Plaintiff, 12 13 Case No. 1:18-cv-00221-DAD-SAB v. (ECF No. 6, 7) AMY LOPEZ, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Gabriel Martinez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed two notices in this action. 19 (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) 20 Plaintiff’s first notice states that orders and judgments must be signed in wet blue ink 21 with no rubber stamps to be accepted as authentic. (ECF No. 6 at 1.) Pursuant to the Local 22 Rules of the Eastern District of California, orders are electronically signed by the assigned Judge, 23 Magistrate Judge or their designee and have the same force and effect as it the Judge or 24 Magistrate Judge had signed a paper copy of the order. L.R. 137(d). There is no merit to 25 Plaintiff’s contention that orders must be signed in wet blue ink to be accepted as authentic. 26 Plaintiff also states that the defendants must respond within twenty-one days after service 27 of this notice of this action and request a common law court to empanel a common law jury of 28 twenty five indigenous free men to hear the case against him. Plaintiff further states that failure 1 1 to notify him and register a dispute against this lawful notice will result in automatic default 2 judgment and permanent, irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence, barring the bringing of charges 3 under any statute or regulation against him or his family. (ECF No. 6 at 1.) Plaintiff’s notice has no legal affect and will be disregarded. Plaintiff has no right to 4 5 request a common law jury be empaneled nor can he create a binding obligation on another 6 individual by serving them with his notice and stating that a lack of response is acquiescence. Plaintiff’s second notice is entitled “Rules of Court-Due Process. (ECF No. 7.) The 7 8 notice states that the defendants shall not be granted summary judgment, will have the right to 9 due process, will enjoy the right to a speedy trial and public trial by a competent or not jury and 10 to be confronted by the witnesses against them. (ECF No. 7.) The rights of the parties in this 11 action cannot be conferred by Plaintiff but are established by the United States Constitution, 12 federal rules, and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff’s notice of Rules 13 of Court-Due Process is disregarded. Based on the foregoing, the notice (ECF No. 6) and notice of rules of court –due process 14 15 (ECF No.7) filed on March 7, 2018 are HEREBY DISREGARDED. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: March 8, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?