Missud v. State of California et al

Filing 179

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 173 174 175 176 177 178 Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File Documents. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service).(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PATRICK MISSUD,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-5468 EMC

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket Nos. 173-178)

13
14
15

This case was closed on February 5, 2013, and is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

16

On July 8, 2013, this Court issued an order quashing an improperly issued subpoena requesting

17

documents unrelated to this case from the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. The Court

18

further ordered that Plaintiff issue no more subpoenas in this case without leave of Court.

19

Since that date, Plaintiff has filed six motions for leave to file various documents. Docket

20

Nos. 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178. The first of these is a motion for leave to serve a subpoena on

21

United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Docket No. 173. The

22

subpoena appears to request that Justices Scalia and Thomas to issue an order directing the

23

California State Bar to produce to Plaintiff the transcripts from his State Bar disciplinary

24

proceedings. Docket No. 173-1 at 5. The fourth-filed motion seeks leave to file a subpoena

25

directing the California State Bar and Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye of the California Supreme

26

Court to produce transcripts of Plaintiff’s State Bar disciplinary proceedings. Docket No. 176 at 1.

27

In addition to the fact that a subpoena is not a proper vehicle for requesting an order of any

28

sort from the Supreme Court, these subpoenas are improper because this case has been closed.

1

Further, these subpoenas, like others Plaintiff has issued, is entirely unrelated to the subject matter of

2

this case. Plaintiff appears to argue that this request is related to the instant matter because both

3

concern his allegations of widespread judicial corruption, or because the undersigned referred

4

Plaintiff to the State Bar for possible disciplinary proceedings. Docket No. 173 at 1-5. The

5

complaint in this case, however, did not bring claims related to the State Bar disciplinary

6

proceedings against Plaintiff, but focused on various unrelated allegations of corruption in city and

7

state government. Docket Nos. 1, 12.

8

Additionally, though Plaintiff appears to have issued both and signed his name as an

9

attorney, both subpoenas are dated after his license to practice law was suspended. Docket No. 1731 at 5 (subpoena dated July 9, 2013); Docket No. 176 (subpoena dated July 17, 2013); Attorney

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Search Results for Patrick Alexandre Missud, State Bar of California,

12

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/219614 (Plaintiff ineligible to practice law as of

13

July 4, 2013). As Plaintiff has been deemed ineligible to practice law, he is no longer an officer of

14

the court, and may not issue and sign subpoenas in that capacity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3).

15

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to issue the subpoena is therefore DENIED. Further, the Court

16

warns Plaintiff that should he attempt to issue any further subpoenas as an attorney, he shall be

17

subject to sanctions including, but not limited to, monetary sanctions, revocation of filing privileges

18

in this case, and other sanctions available under Rule 11 as well as pursuant to the inherent power of

19

this Court.

20

Plaintiff’s other recent filings are denominated motions for leave to file documents, but

21

actually appear to be briefs and supporting exhibits he filed in the State Bar disciplinary

22

proceedings, a California Superior Court case, and in support of his petition for certiorari with the

23

Supreme Court. Docket Nos. 174, 175, 176, 178. In none of these does he request any kind of relief

24

from this Court. These motions are therefore DENIED.

25

In the five months since this case was terminated, Plaintiff has filed more than 100

26

documents, many with hundreds of pages of supporting exhibits. Though a few of these were

27

procedurally proper motions to alter or amend the judgment in this case, the vast majority of these

28

filings have no discernible relationship to the subject matter of this case, but instead concern

2

1

sweeping allegations about judicial and official corruption, various conspiracy theories, and filings

2

from other litigation with which Plaintiff is involved. Reviewing thousands of pages of irrelevant

3

documents is unnecessarily burdensome and a waste of judicial resources. Plaintiff is therefore

4

ORDERED to show cause why his filing privileges in this case should not be revoked. Plaintiff’s

5

response to this order shall be filed no later than August 2, 2013, and shall not exceed five pages in

6

length. Any submission beyond this page limit, including attachments, shall be disregarded by the

7

Court.

8

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, and 178.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: July 19, 2013

13
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3