CA Pro Se Litigant, Erin Baldwin, Appeals Order of Federal Judge David O. Carter

Dec. 20, 2011 - PRLog -- U.S. District Court, Central District of CA, Case No. 5:11-CV-01300-DOC
Pro Se Section 1983 Civil Rights Case

Plaintiff, Erin K. Baldwin, appears to file this Notice of Appeal of the December 2, 2011 Order of Judge David O. Carter that states:
   
"Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend her “corrected” Second Amended Complaint is DENIED, as Plaintiff’s rambling set of facts in the Motion 17-24 provide no support for granting such a request. Plaintiff has simply not explained why any amendment is necessary.
   
"Second, Plaintiff’s Request for a Declaratory Judgment is DENIED because Plaintiff does not clearly explain what she means by a “Declaratory Judgment that sets forth the rights and responsibilities of the parties.” Motion, 12. This vague request is not sufficient grounds for any action by the Court.
   
"Third, Plaintiff requests a variety of “explanations of adverse findings” in conjunction with the Court’s previous denial of Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction (Docket 22). The Court has already denied each of Plaintiff’s requests in its November 22, 2011 Order.  
   
"The Court’s stamp of “Denied” is not a “prank,” as Plaintiff alleges but simply means of stating that Plaintiff provided no factual or legal support sufficient to grant her motion in any respect. Plaintiff should be aware that the “Denied” stamp is a valid exercise of the Court’s power and is a legitimate order, should she encounter it in the future.

"The facts have not changed since the Court’s previous denial of Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. The Court understands and is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s feeling that she was wronged by a multitude of parties but the Court is unable to grant motions for preliminary injunctions that are not warranted by facts or law.
   
"Plaintiff has yet to provide any valid explanation that would cause the Court to take action in any of the matters listed in Plaintiff’s Motion. To the extent this explanation serves to explain the adverse findings in the Court’s November 22, 2011 Order, Plaintiff’s request is granted; but to the extent Plaintiff seeks a detailed explanation on each of her numerous claims in the preliminary injunction, her request is denied."

///

Plaintiff appeals this Order based on violations of her constitutional rights, the right to equal protection under the law as a pro se and indigent litigant, and the complete disregard of Plaintiff's right to fundamental fairness.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES:

a.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request for equal privilege and protection under the law as a pro se, indigent litigant.

b.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request for the same rights and privileges granted to plaintiffs with legal representation.

c.   Whether the District Court erred in classifying Plaintiff's §1983 Civil Rights Complaint a "194 Case."

d.   Whether the District Court erred in requiring Plaintiff to submit to mandatory alternative dispute resolution.  

e.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request to bring her constitutional claims before an Article III District Court Judge.

f.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request to withhold consent to a U.S. Magistrate Judge.

g.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information about her own case regarding the status of U.S. Magistrate Judge Pym's Orders post-recusal.

h.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information about the identity of the judicial officer assigned to her case following the recusal of Magistrate Pym.

i.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request for an explanation of the basis of adverse findings.

j.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request to recover her property unlawfully searched and seized from Plaintiff on June 19, 2009.

k.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request to recover her property unlawfully searched and seized from Plaintiff on or about August 31, 2009.

l.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request to recover her property unlawfully searched and seized from Plaintiff on February 25, 2010.   
   
m.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request to present all triable issues of fact to a jury prior to a court hearing on matters of law.

n.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff's request for effective assistance of counsel at the expense of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 83.11.

o.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff leave to amend her 'Corrected' Second Amended Complaint.

p.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff protection against ongoing post-Complaint retaliatory acts by defendants acting under color of state law.

q.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff a stay in the underlying Superior Court contempt case until Plaintiff's §1983 case is complete.

r.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to exclude the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine as an affirmative defense in a dispositive motion to dismiss until the validity of the underlying permanent injunctions can be determined.

s.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to exclude the Younger Abstention Doctrine as an affirmative defense in a dispositive motion to dismiss until the validity of the underlying permanent injunctions can be determined.

t.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to recall the retaliatory bench warrant issued by Judge Franz E. Miller on August 18, 2011, two days after he was served with Plaintiff's §1983 Complaint.

u.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request for a Declaration of Rights to promote efficiency and prevent complex case confusion.
      
v.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to be self-representing by denying Plaintiff's request to disqualify the Orange County Public Defender due to fraud upon the court.

w.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request to recover all Brady evidence, files, documents, pleadings, et al., currently in the possession of the Orange County Public Defender.

x.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s request for a cap on statutes of limitation and equitable tolling.

y.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff formal rulings to pleadings filed in this present action.

z.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information regarding the identity of the U.S. Attorney assigned to represent The Honorable Judge Cormac J. Carney as a defendant in this action.

aa.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information regarding the identity of the U.S. Attorney assigned to represent The Honorable Magistrate Judge Sheri N. Pym as a defendant in this action.

bb.  Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information regarding the purpose of transmitting Plaintiff's documents to Darryl Musick, Information Specialist, U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C.  

cc. Whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff information regarding the status of Attorney Sarah L. Overton as counsel of record for Defendant Judge Franz E. Miller after she was named a defendant in this case.  

dd.  Whether the District Court erred in denying all pro se, indigent litigants equal privilege and protection under the law by way of its inconsistent, contradictory and confusing General Orders and Local Rules.

ee.  Whether the District Court erred in presenting to the public General Orders and Local Rules contrary to the approved and mandated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ff.  Whether the District Court erred in maintaining a pro se clinic that distributes misleading and detrimental information to pro se litigants.