Schafler v. Court of Appeals Panel

Filing 4

ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 4/12/2011. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/13/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 PEPI SCHAFLER, Plaintiff, 8 9 v. HSBC BANK USA, et al., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 06-5908 PJH No. C 06-6887 PJH No. C 10-80137 JW ORDER Defendants. _______________________________/ 12 13 On April 8, 2011, Judge Ware issued an order referring plaintiff’s petition for writ of 14 habeas corpus, filed in Case No. C 10-80137 JW, to the undersigned for determination of 15 whether it falls within the scope of this court’s prior pre-review order, filed in C 06-5908 PJH 16 and C 06-6887 PJH. 17 The court’s prior order, issued on February 21, 2007, declared plaintiff to be a 18 vexatious litigant, but was limited in scope. It enjoined plaintiff from filing, without approval 19 by the court, any action within this district against certain named defendants, including 20 HSBC, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co. Bank, Scott D. Miller, and Cheryl Storie, in 21 connection with any claims arising out of the alleged unlawful conversion of her funds in 22 November of 1985. Plaintiff was also instructed to meet certain requirements before filing 23 any such qualifying action. 24 Having reviewed plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed in C 10-80137 JW, 25 the court has determined that the petition does not fall within the scope of the 26 undersigned’s prior order. While not wholly clear from the allegations stated in plaintiff’s 27 current petition, plaintiff appears to take issue with a bankruptcy proceeding that occurred 28 in Maryland and California beginning sometime in or around 1996 and lasting through 1999 1 at least. Plaintiff also appears to take issue with the actions of various judges and 2 attorneys connected to these proceedings. None of these allegations arise out of the 1985 3 alleged conversion of plaintiff’s funds, nor do they state claims against any of the 4 defendants covered by the court’s prior order. 5 Accordingly, the court determines that plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 6 does not fall under the February 2007 order issued in plaintiff’s earlier filed cases, and the 7 court accordingly takes no further action in approving the filing of plaintiff’s petition for writ 8 of habeas corpus, or in otherwise passing upon the merits of plaintiff’s current petition. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: April 12, 2011 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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?