In Re BBYW Holdings LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER RE PETITIONS FOR TRIBAL COURT ORDER. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/10/2022. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IN RE BBYW HOLDINGS LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No. 21-mc-80273-HSG
ORDER RE PETITIONS FOR TRIBAL
COURT ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 18

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

An entity named “BBYW Holdings LLC,” through Yolanda Lewis, who purports to

14

proceed pro se (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), initiated this lawsuit on November 19, 2021, by filing a

15

“notice of execution” seeking to enforce a purported $1,725,000,000 judgment.1 See Dkt. No. 1.

16

Pending before the Court are two motions titled “Petition for a Tribal Protection Order” filed by

17

BBYW Holdings LLC. See Dkt. Nos. 15, 18. These motions seek “an emergency protective order

18

through an Ex-Parte hearing” and request, among other things, a “Writ of Execution” for

19

“Restoration of Ipso Jure American Autochthon Heirship, and cessation of racial classifications

20

systems to institute organized genocide,” as well as the return of American Autochthonous Heir’s

21

property from “third party larceners engaging in unauthorized acts of war to confiscate property.”

22

See, e.g., Dkt. No. 18 at 4, 8. Because the motions request an immediate hearing and seek an

23

“emergency” protective order, the Court construes them as requests for a temporary restraining

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that an individual who appears pro se has no authority to appear on behalf of
any other person or entity. See, e.g., Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664–65 (9th Cir.
2008) (collecting cases and noting that courts routinely prohibit pro se plaintiffs “from pursuing
claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity”); Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79
(9th Cir. 1962) (“A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other
than himself.”). But because it is unclear from the face of the pleadings who purports to represent
“BBYW Holdings LLC”, and because the motions seek an immediate hearing for an “emergency”
protective order, the Court will address the merits of Plaintiffs’ motions.

1

order. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motions.2
A temporary restraining order is an “extraordinary remedy” that the court should award

2
3

only upon a clear showing that the party is entitled to such relief. See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co.,

4

Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001); Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.

5

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief must establish: (1) that

6

they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

7

absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) that an

8

injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.
Here, Plaintiffs have not established that they are likely to succeed on the merits.

10

Plaintiffs’ legal bases for the relief sought in the motions appear to be House Concurrent

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Resolution 331 and 18 U.S.C. § 2265. See Dkt. No. 15 at 2 (“I am demanding Congressional

12

Mandate per H.CON.RES 331 an emergency protective order through an Ex-Parte hearing. Such

13

hearing ought take effect immediately with or without prior notification to the respondent pursuant

14

to Title 18 Section 2265.”); Dkt. No. 18 at 2 (same). The first is a resolution by the U.S. House of

15

Representatives acknowledging the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations to the

16

development of the United States Constitution and reaffirming the continuing government-to-

17

government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States. See H. Con. Res. 331, 100th

18

Cong. 2nd Sess. (1988). Plaintiffs have identified no authority for the proposition that this

19

resolution provides any litigant with a private right of action, and the Court is aware of none.
The Court assumes that Plaintiffs also seek to invoke the procedure set forth in 18 U.S.C. §

20
21

2265, which provides that a qualifying protection order issued by any “State, Indian tribe, or

22

territory” shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State, Indian tribe, or

23

territory. Among other things, to be accorded such full faith and credit, the protection order in

24

question must be issued by a “state, tribal or territorial court” with “jurisdiction over the parties

25

and matter under the law of such State, Indian tribe, or territory.” 18 U.S.C. § 2265(b)(1).
At best, it is unclear that § 2265 offers Plaintiffs a private right of action to impose civil

26
27
28

2

The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the
matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
2

1

liability or to have a protection order enforced. See Van Hope-el v. United States Dep't of State,

2

No. 1:18-CV-0441-JLT, 2019 WL 295774, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2019), (“The statutes arising

3

under Title 18 of the United States Code, address violations of criminal law. Courts have

4

determined repeatedly that claims arising under Sections 241, 1028, and 2265—which Plaintiff

5

seeks to invoke here—fail because the statutes do not provide a private right of action or impose

6

civil liability.”), aff'd sub nom, Hope-El v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 19-15311, 2019 WL 3941181

7

(9th Cir. June 26, 2019); Mundkowsky v. Cty. of L.A., No. CV 14-599-CAS(CW), 2015 U.S. Dist.

8

LEXIS 89954, at *27-28 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2015) (“Section 2265 does not create a private right of

9

action . . . . [N]othing in § 2265’s text either expressly or impliedly reflects that Congress intended
to create a private right or a private remedy.”). And in any event, the Court finds that Plaintiffs

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

have not validly invoked § 2265 because they have not presented the Court with a protection order

12

issued by a State, tribal, or territorial court recognized under either federal or state law within the

13

meaning of § 2265(b). Thus, because Plaintiffs have failed to establish a legal basis for the relief

14

they seek and have therefore not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, their motions are

15

DENIED. This Order accordingly TERMINATES Docket Nos. 15 and 18.

16

Moreover, after reviewing the initial filings in this case, the Court finds that it should not

17

have been classified as a miscellaneous case. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close this case.

18

Should Plaintiffs refile this action, they shall do so by filing a complaint, a civil cover sheet, and

19

either paying the fee for filing a civil case or filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/10/2022
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3