Hummasti v. Ali et al
Filing
175
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DECLINES to issue an order to show cause "why disciplinary action including suspension, disbarment, or other appropriate disciplinary action, should not be taken against the attorney including monetary sanctio ns in the amount of $150,000" or an order directing the Oregon Supreme Court to disbar Milo Petranovich per Plaintiff's request 174 . The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. See 10-page opinion and order attached. Signed on 4/18/2013 by Judge Anna J. Brown. Copy mailed to John M. Hummasti. (mr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOHN M. HUMMASTI,
3:06-CV-01710-BR
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
ASAD ABDIRIZAK ALI; EMAL
WAHAB; RANDY BLAZAK;
K. MCGHEE, PSU Financial Aid
Director; OFFICER PAHLKE;
OFFICER MICHAELSON; OFFICER
K. GOODNER; OFFICER RAY;
OFFICER WESSON; ISLAMIC
CENTER OF PORTLAND; BILAL
MASJID; MASJID AL SABR;
MUSLIM COMMUNITY CENTER OF
PORTLAND; AL HARAMAIN ISLAMIC
FOUNDATION; and QURAN
FOUNDATION,
Defendants.
JOHN HUMMASTI
3135 S.E. 147th Avenue
Portland, OR 97236
Plaintiff, Pro Se
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
ELLEN ROSENBLUM
Attorney General
JUSTIN E. KIDD
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street N.E.
Salem, OR 97301-4096
(503) 378-6313
Attorneys for Defendants Randy Blazak and Kenneth
McGhee
JENNY MORF
Multnomah County Attorney
CARLO CALANDRIELLO
Assistant Multnomah County Attorney
501 S.E. Hawthorne Boulevard
Suite 500
Portland, OR 97214
Attorneys for Defendant Emal Wahab
JAMES H . VAN DYKE
City Attorney
JAMES G. RICE
Assistant City Attorney
1221 S.W. Fourth Avenue
Room 430
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 823-4047
Attorneys for Defendants Officer Pahlke, Officer
Michaelson, Officer K. Goodner, Officer Ray, and
Officer Wesson (hereinafter referred to as Defendant
Officers)
KRISTEN L. WINEMILLER
121 S.W. Salmon St.
1420 World Trade Center
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 222-2510
Attorney for Defendants Islamic Center of Portland,
Bilal Masjid, Masjid Al Sabr, and Muslim Community
Center of Portland
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
BROWN, Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's filing
(#174) titled "In the Matter of the Suspension of Milo
Petranovich by the Oregon State Bar and the Resignation of Milo
Petranovich and in and for the State Bar of California."
For the reasons that follow, the Court DECLINES to issue an
order to show cause on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction to
do so and DENIES Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel.
BACKGROUND
On November 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in which
he alleged (1) Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to close
Plaintiff's business and to prevent Plaintiff from "collecting
charity for the Jewish Community in Portland" in violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, et seq.;
(2) Defendants Asad Abdirizak Ali,
Bilal Masjid, Masjid Al Sabr, and Muslim Community Center of
Portland conspired to deprive Plaintiff of the right to exercise
free speech on public campuses and institutions within the United
States;
(3) Defendant McGhee denied Plaintiff financial aid at
Portland State University (PSU) in violation of his rights under
the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution;
(4) Defendant Ali "conspired to, alleged and made a false report
to Portland Police Officers so as to deprive Plaintiff of Free
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
Speech in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§§
1981, 1983, and 1985";
(5) Defendant Randy Blazak "conspired to deprive Plaintiff of the
right to Due Process of Law" when he ''intentionally destroyed or
concealed evidence of a hate crime";
(6)
Defendant Officers
violated Plaintiff's rights to "Free Speech, Religion, Equal
Protection of Law in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1985"; and
(7) Defendant Officers unreasonably handcuffed Plaintiff.
On June 18, 2007, the Court entered an Order directing
Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be
dismissed as to Defendants Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Quran
Foundation, and Asad Abdirizak Ali for failure to prosecute.
On October 4, 2007, the Court entered an Order noting
Plaintiff had not provided any substantive reason as to why he
failed to serve and to prosecute Defendants Al Haramain Islamic
Foundation, Quran Foundation, and Asad Abdirizak Ali.
The Court,
therefore, dismissed Plaintiff's action against these Defendants
without prejudice.
In May and June 2008 the remaining Defendants filed Motions
for Summary Judgment,
1
and Plaintiff filed a Cross-Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.
1
On October 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed
On May 7, 2008, the Court issued a Summary Judgment Advice
Notice to Plaintiff advising him that if he did not submit
evidence in opposition to any motion for summary judgment,
summary judgment would be entered against him if it was
appropriate.
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
an Ex Parte Submission as to the Motion for Summary Judgment of
Defendants Blazak and McGhee.
Plaintiff, however, did not
respond to the Motions of the other Defendants.
On March 23, 2009, the Court granted Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the grounds that
(1) there was not any evidence from
which a reasonable juror could find Emil Wahab attempted to
extort money or food from Plaintiff either alone or in concert
with other Defendants;
(2)
Plaintiff did not serve a Summons and
Complaint on Islamic Center of Portland and Bilal Masjid within
120 days of November 27, 2006, which is the date that Plaintiff
filed his Complaint;
(3) there was not any evidence that Masjid
Al Sabr and Muslim Community Center of Portland engaged in a
conspiracy to close Plaintiff's business or to prevent Plaintiff
from collecting charity for the Jewish community in Portland;
(4)
Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to establish there
was an alleged conspiracy between Defendant Officers based on a
racial or class-based animus within the meaning of§ 1985(3);
(5)
Plaintiff did not allege or produce any evidence that
Defendant Officers impaired his ability to make, to enforce, or
to enjoy the benefit of any contract or that they did so on the
basis of Plaintiff's race in violation of§ 1981;
(6)
Plaintiff
did not produce any evidence, direct or circumstantial, that
Defendant Officers expressed opposition to Plaintiff's speech or
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
that the reasons they offered for arresting Plaintiff were false
or pretextual in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the First
Amendment;
(7)
Defendant Officers had reasonable suspicion and
probable cause to detain and to arrest Plaintiff;
(8) Plaintiff failed to provide any significant probative
evidence to support his excessive-force claim based on painful
handcuffing;
(9)
Plaintiff did not show any genuine issue of
material fact exists as to whether Blazak, McGhee, and other
Defendants in this matter were part of an associated-in-fact
enterprise in violation of RICO;
(10)
Plaintiff did not show any
genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Blazak was
acting under color of state law within the meaning of
(11)
§
1983; and
Plaintiff was precluded by a settlement agreement with PSU
from bringing his claim against McGhee.
Also on March 23, 2009, the Court entered a Judgment in this
matter dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Blazak,
McGhee, Ray, Wesson, Pahlke, Michaelson, Goodner, Wahab, Masjid
Al Sabr, and the Muslim Community Center of Portland with
prejudice and dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendants
Islamic Center of Portland and Bilal Masjid without prejudice.
On April 1, 2009, Defendants Islamic Center of Portland,
Bilal Masjid, Masjid Al Sabr, and Muslim Community Center of
Portland filed a Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) (2) and (3)
6 - OPINION AND ORDER
for an order
enjoining Plaintiff "from filing any civil lawsuit or claim
against any defendant to this action, or any other defendant,
without obtaining the Court's permission to file such action."
On June 11, 2009, the Court entered an Order denying
Defendants' Motion for Sanctions.
On November 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief
from Judgment.
On November 19, 2010, the Court entered an Order
denying Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment as untimely.
On November 30, 2010, Plaintiff appealed the Court's
November 19, 2010, Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On March 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court's
November 19, 2010, Order.
On August 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective
Order for Safe Passage and a Motion for Witness Security.
On
August 20, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's
Motions and cautioning Plaintiff that "any further frivolous
filings in this action may result in a declaration that Plaintiff
is a vexatious litigant and entry of a pre-filing order
restricting Plaintiff's ability to submit motions or other
pleadings in this action."
On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document titled "In the
Matter of the Suspension of Milo Petranovich by the Oregon State
Bar and the Resignation of Milo Petranovich and in and for the
State Bar of California" in which he seeks an order to show cause
7 - OPINION AND ORDER
"why disciplinary action including suspension, disbarment, or
other appropriate disciplinary action, should not be taken
against the attorney including monetary sanctions in the amount
of $150,000."
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order directing
the Oregon Supreme Court to disbar his former attorney, Milo
Petranovich.
Plaintiff also requests the Court to appoint
counsel in this matter.
DISCUSSION
Oregon Revised Statute
§
9.527 provides the Oregon Supreme
Court "may disbar, suspend or reprimand a member of the bar."
The Supreme Court has made clear that "the interest of the States
in regulating lawyers is especially great since lawyers are
essential to the primary governmental function of administering
justice, and have historically been officers of the courts."
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
483, n.16 (1983) (quotation omitted).
Accordingly, "orders of a
state court relating to the admission, discipline, and disbarment
of members of its bar may be reviewed only by the Supreme Court
of the United States on certiorari to the state court, and not by
means of an original action in a lower federal court."
Id.
(quotation omitted).
This Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to discipline or
to disbar an attorney or to direct the Oregon Supreme Court to do
8 - OPINION AND ORDER
so.
Accordingly, the Court declines to issue an order to show
cause "why disciplinary action including suspension, disbarment,
or other appropriate disciplinary action, should not be taken
against the attorney including monetary sanctions in the amount
of $150,000" or an order directing the Oregon Supreme Court to
disbar Mile Petranovich.
As noted, Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel and
continues to file documents in this action.
The Court, however,
entered a Judgment in March 2009, and, this matter, therefore, is
closed.
Accordingly, the Court declines to appoint counsel for
Plaintiff.
Finally, the Court again cautions Plaintiff that if he
continues to file frivolous documents, the Court will enter an
order declaring Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant and
restricting Plaintiff's ability to submit motions or other
pleadings.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court DECLINES to issue an order to
show cause "why disciplinary action including suspension,
disbarment, or other appropriate disciplinary action, should not
be taken against the attorney including monetary sanctions in the
amount of $150,000" or an order directing the Oregon Supreme
Court to disbar Milo Petranovich per Plaintiff's request (#174)
9 - OPINION AND ORDER
The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's request for appointment of
counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 18 th day of April, 2013.
A~
United States District Judge
10 - OPINION AND ORDER
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?