Elder-Evins v. Casey et al

Filing 167

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 107 Motion for Leave to File; terminating 114 Motion for Extension of Time to File; terminating 114 Motion ; terminating 133 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 OAKLAND DIVISION 6 7 ANNETTE SHARLENE ELDER-EVINS, TR., Case No: C 09-05775 SBA Plaintiff, 8 ORDER 9 vs. Dkts. 107, 114, 133 10 MICHAEL J. CASEY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 The parties are presently before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Annettee Sharlene Elder- 14 Evins’ (“Plaintiff”) “Objection to Dismissal of Dockets 40, 84, 90,” which this Court liberally 15 construes as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of a January 31, 2011 Order 16 issued by this Court (“Order of 1/31/11”). Plaintiff operates a commercial scrap metal business 17 on her property. She has sued multiple defendants for their conduct arising out of certain 18 inspections of her property for weed abatement and building code enforcement purposes. Dkt. 19 106. In the Order of 1/31/11, the Court dismissed portions of Plaintiff’s first amended 20 complaint with prejudice, but permitted her to amend other portions by filing a Second 21 Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Id. Relevant to Plaintiff’s motion for leave are the portions of 22 the Order of 1/31/11 that (1) dismiss without leave to amend Plaintiff’s claims against certain 23 state court judges (“Judge Defendants”) on the ground that Plaintiff had not alleged facts that 24 overcame judicial immunity; and (2) dismiss without leave to amend Plaintiff’s tort claim 25 against the City of Santa Rose on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to allege facts showing 26 she filed a claim in compliance with the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”) prior to 27 instituting this action. Id. 28 Plaintiff’s motion for leave is not a model of clarity. Dkt. 107. Plaintiff raises many 1 issues and objections, such as, among other things, asserting a right to be represented by 2 counsel because her grandfathers lived on Indian Reservations, protesting the purported use of 3 British law in the instant action, presenting her viewpoints about justice, demanding that she is 4 entitled to a discharge of ‘the fraudulent tax debt,” maintaining that she is a “secured party 5 creditor” under the U.C.C., and arguing she properly engages in weed abatement. From her 6 arguments, the Court is able to discern two grounds upon which Plaintiff seeks reconsideration. 7 First, she appears to seek reconsideration of this Court’s decision to dismiss without leave to 8 amend the Judge Defendants. Id. 5, 12. While not altogether clear, Plaintiff seems to argue 9 that Judge Gnoss expressed a bias against her by not holding a hearing on her claims, as she 10 believes that she was entitled to a “meet and confer appointment” to discuss the parameters of 11 the inspections on her property and that the court was without jurisdiction to permit the 12 inspections. Id. at 5, 12. Second, again while not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to challenge 13 the Court’s decision that she did not comply with the CTCA, generally asserting that she made 14 many claims to various agencies, including the “court clerk in Superior Court.” Id. 4-5. 15 16 17 18 19 20 A party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory court order must first seek leave to file such a motion. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). The moving party must specifically show: (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or 21 22 (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 23 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1),(2)&(3). The Court may summarily deny motions that are not filed in 24 compliance with the Court’s Local Rules. See Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 25 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding district court’s denial of motion to tax costs which 26 was not in compliance with the court’s local rules); see also Wood v. Santa Barbara 27 Chamber of Commerce, 705 F.2d 1515, 1519 (9th Cir. 1983) (district court did not abuse 28 -2- 1 its discretion in striking untimely affidavits in opposition to summary judgment motion 2 where party failed to request extension of time or show excusable neglect). 3 Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the standards under Civil Local Rule 7-9 for leave to 4 file a motion for reconsideration. She fails to show that any material difference in fact or 5 law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the Order of 6 1/31/2011. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1). She fails to the establish the emergence of new material 7 facts or a change of law occurring after the time the Order of 1/31/2011 was filed. Id. at 7- 8 9(b)(2). Further, she does not demonstrate a manifest failure by the Court to consider 9 material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court in 10 11 connection with the Order of 1/31/2011. Id. at 7-9(b)(3). Moreover, with regard to her arguments pertaining to Judge Gnoss, she has not 12 shown facts overcoming judicial immunity. Judicial immunity may be overcome where a 13 judge takes actions that (1) are not in the judge’s judicial capacity; and (2) are without 14 jurisdiction. Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); see also Stump v. Sparman, 435 15 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (immunity exists even when a judge’s actions were in error, done 16 maliciously and were in excess of authority). Plaintiff’s statements about Judge Gnoss’ 17 conduct do not show that the possibility of either of the two exceptions to judicial immunity 18 exist. Even though Plaintiff asserts that Judge Gnoss acted without jurisdiction in 19 permitting the inspections, she puts forth no specific facts or legal authority detailing how 20 his actions—executed within his judicial role—of permitting inspections were performed 21 without jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the Judge Defendants should be, 22 as they have been, dismissed without leave to amend, especially since she has already been 23 given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in her allegations, but failed to do so. 24 Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion on this ground. 25 As to Plaintiff’s tort claim against the City of Santa Rosa, for the claim to be viable, 26 Plaintiff had to file a claim with the City under the CTCA and the City had to act upon it. 27 Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4. Plaintiff is required to allege facts either demonstrating or 28 excusing compliance with the prerequisite of presentment of a claim under the CTCA to the -3- 1 City. State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1243 (2004). 2 Plaintiff failed to allege the necessary facts, and, because she had been given a prior 3 opportunity to cure and failed to cure, the Court dismissed the claim without leave to 4 amend. Plaintiff’s current assertion that she has filed many complaints with many different 5 agencies does establish facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the CTCA 6 requirement of filing a specific claim with the City pertaining to her tort cause of action, 7 and therefore the Court denies her motion for leave on this ground. Accordingly, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 9 1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 10 Plaintiff shall file her SAC consistent with this Court’s Order of 1/31/11 within twenty (20) 11 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is reminded of her obligation to allege facts and claims 12 only to the extent that she may do so in good faith. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Defendants shall file 13 their response to the SAC within twenty (20) days of the date Plaintiff files it. 14 2. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 107, 114, 133. 16 17 Dated: September 12, 2011 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 ANNETTE SHARLENE ELDER-EVINS, 6 Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 MICHAEL J. CASEY et al, 9 Defendant. / 10 11 Case Number: CV09-05775 SBA 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 13 14 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 15 16 17 That on September 13, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 18 19 20 21 Annette Sharlene Elder-Evins Guenocamata Sovereign Trust Guenocamata Rancheria 948 Leddy Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95407-6601 22 23 24 Dated: September 13, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 25 26 27 28 -5-

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?