Rodriguez v. The Supreme Court and the People of the State of California

Filing 5

ORDER re 4 Denying Motion. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 1/24/2012. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 10-80216 CRB

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

ORDER FINDING MATTER
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
EXCLUSIONARY ORDER LIMITING
PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO FILE AND
DENYING MOTION

Plaintiff,
v.

14

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
15 CALIFORNIA,
16

Defendants.

/

17
18

On September 2, 2010 Plaintiff Daniel Rodriguez filed a lawsuit nominally against the

19

Supreme Court of San Francisco and the people of California apparently related to alleged

20

abuse he suffered at the hands of one or more deputies during his time as an inmate in the

21

San Francisco County Jail. Dkt. 1. The Court is in receipt of a document titled “Motion for

22

Dismissal,” which appears to ask for a guilty plea to be set aside, and release petitioner form

23

all penalties and disabilities resulting from a state law offense conviction. Dkt. 4.

24

Because Mr. Rodriguez has a history of filing complaints concerning allegations of

25

medical malpractice, he is subject to a Standing Order requiring a “pre-filing review of any

26

complaint” to ascertain whether that complaint should be summarily rejected as

27

impermissibly duplicative. See Order Dismissing Compl. (Dkt. 14) in 08-5257 MHP. The

28

Complaint in this matter does not concern allegations of medical malpractice, and it is thus
not barred by the Standing Order.

1

Accordingly, the Court will treat the Motion as filed and, in the interest of judicial

2

expediency, DENY this Motion, as the relief petitioner is seeking appears to have already been

3

granted by the state court. Plaintiff requests “that the plea of guilty be set aside, a plea of not guilty

4

be entered that the [a]ccusatory pleading be dismissed, and the petitioner be released from all

5

penalties and disabilities [r]esulting from said offense pursuant to Section 1203.4a of the penal

6

code.” Mot. at 1. Attached to this Motion are two documents from his case in the Superior Court of

7

the State of California, County of San Francisco. The first is a Motion for Dismissal pursuant to

8

Section 1203.4a of the Penal Code, and the second is an Order of Dismissal Pursuant to Penal Code

9

Section 1203.4a signed by Judge Ron Albers of the Superior Court. See Dkt. 1 at 4-5.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

This state court Order states that “petitioner be permitted to withdraw the plea of guilty and

11

that a plea of not guilty be entered,” that “the accusatory pleading against the petitioner be

12

dismissed,” and further that “petitioner be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from

13

the conviction pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4a.” Id. at 5. The Order has only a small

14

exception which does not seem to apply. Thus, it does appear to this Court that it could fashion any

15

relief that Plaintiff has not already received from the state court. Accordingly, the Motion is

16

DENIED. If the Court has misinterpreted the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff may re-file an

17

expanded request within thirty days.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 24, 2012

23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2010\80216\Order Denying Motion.wpd

2