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)

Download PDF
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

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?