Ninth Circuit Gives Pro Se Journalist the Silent Treatment - Part I

March 27, 2012 - PRLog -- COMES APPELLANT ERIN K. BALDWIN ("Baldwin") to respectfully present to this Court a Supplemental Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.

1.  On March 21, 2012 at 1:10 P.M., Baldwin spoke with "Katie," Staff Attorney of this Court who informed Baldwin that although the February 15, 2012 Order of this Court states: "No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case," that Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton were currently reviewing Baldwin's "Emergency Petition for First Amendment Writ of Mandate" filed on January 26, 2012 ("Writ") and Baldwin's Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc filed on February 22, 2012 ("Petition").  Accordingly, Baldwin files this supplemental pleading to be considered in conjunction with motions currently under review.    

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

2.  This Court, without explanation, significantly altered the caption in this matter from that submitted by Baldwin on her Writ.  Baldwin hereby requests an explanation of same as the alteration materially misrepresents the facts of this case.  
   
a.  Baldwin submitted her Writ with the following caption:  "In Re Erin K. Baldwin, Petitioner-Appellant v. United States District Court For the Central District of California, Respondent-Appellee; Interested Parties: Defendant Franz E. Miller."
   
b.  The February 15, 2012 Order of this Court bears the following caption:
"In Re: Erin Baldwin; Erin Baldwin, Petitioner v. United States District Court For The Central District Of California, Riverside, Respondent, and Franz E. Miller, In His Individual Capacity as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Whittier Law School, Real Party In Interest."

3.  To date, Baldwin's Motion to Disqualify U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee ("Judge Gee") has not been ruled on.  The motion was originally filed in the district court on February 16, 2012 and simultaneously filed in this Court because Baldwin requested a reassignment to a judge outside the Central District of California.  This request was specifically addressed to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.  However, neither the district court nor this Court has taken any action on this matter.  This motion is a separate matter from any of Baldwin's appeals.  Therefore, any Order written by this Court that states "all pending motions are moot," does not apply to this Motion to Disqualify Judge Gee.  

4.  If, in fact, this Court has denied and dismissed all of Baldwin's appeals, the matter would then fall back into the jurisdiction of the Central District Court of California.  However, since there has been no ruling on this motion, nor self-recusal, reassignment or any other action taken, Baldwin requests an immediate ruling and written Order outlining this Court's decision and identifying the judicial officer now assigned to Baldwin's Section 1983 Case No. 5:11-cv-01300-DMG.

5.  On March 7, 2012, Baldwin sent certified correspondence to the Clerk of this Court, Molly Dwyer, as well as to the Clerk to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and the Clerks to Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton requesting an investigation into what appeared to be fraud upon the court.  Baldwin has not received a response nor has any action been taken on the important issues contained therein, and set forth here, infra.  Baldwin requests an immediate response to these issues.

"Enclosed please find the (a) face page for the Notice of Appeal (due to financial constraints); (b) this Court's Order Dismissing Appeal; and (c) the Petition for Rehearing / Rehearing En Banc for each of above-referenced cases. In Case No. 12-70296, an Emergency Petition for First  Amendment Writ of Mandate substitutes for the Notice of Appeal.

"I am sending hard copies of these pleadings to you for your review because I am now satisfied that although Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton sat as the Motions Panel for February, 2012, it is not possible that the Orders issued in these matters were written by Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton. It is my belief that these Order were written by U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Appellate Commissioner, Peter L. Shaw; Senior Staff Attorney, Ed Schiffer; Supervising Staff Attorney, Susan Gelmis; and Motions Attorney, Monica Fernandez.

"Accordingly, I request an investigation or explanation as to said facts because it appears that misconduct has occurred in the names of Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton without their knowledge.

"Due to boilerplate orders written by motions attorneys dismissing my appeals, the absence of showing by adverse parties, the recent rejection of my Petitions for Rehearing by clerical staff in the San Francisco branch, the absence of warning of dismissal or Order to Show Cause why my appeals should not be dismissed, and the presence of decided constitutional issue precluding the dismissal of my appeals without a constitutional inquiry, it would be unimaginable that Circuit Judges Schroeder, Leavy and Clifton would have participated in or had knowledge of such activities.

"I bring these matters to your attention in the hope that my appeals will be reinstated and allowed the same opportunity for briefing and consideration as appeals brought by non-indigent, represented appellants. If I could afford an attorney, believe me I would hire one, but the absence of same should not adversely prejudice my appeals nor should my lack of income disallow me the same right to appeal as those with a healthy balance sheet."

6.  Finally, there appears to be some question as to the legitimacy of the Orders issued in this Court as well as in the district court on which Baldwin's appeals are based.  Baldwin requests that all orders be certified by the Clerk.

7.  United States Supreme Court Rule 13 states: "Petitions for certiorari must be filed within ninety days from the lower court's entry of 'final judgment.'"  However, the Orders issued in this Court and the district court fail to contain the required elements to assert same.  It appears that the Ninth Circuit is once again deliberately denying Baldwin's First Amendment right to petition the court for redress of grievances and her Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts by issuing intentionally flawed court orders.  None of the below rules were complied with in any instance in Baldwin's orders.

8.  In In Re Thurman Brown v. Wilshire Credit Corporation, (Case No. 05-15605 (Ninth Circuit, April 26, 2007) this Court held:  "We hold today that a minute entry that merely grants summary judgment; without more; does not become a final, appealable judgment just because it has been signed by the judge. The minute entry in this case was the memorialization of a ruling, not a judgment, and thus did not trigger the 10-day window in which Brown was required to appeal. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing Brown's appeal as untimely."

9.  In Beaudry Motor Co. v. Abko Props., Inc., this Court held: "A minute order may satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 where it states on its face that it is an order, and it is mailed to counsel, signed by the clerk, and entered on the docket sheet."
   
10.  In Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Ass’n, this Court held: "A minute order does not constitute separate judgment because it was not signed by the deputy clerk who prepared it, it did not contain language stating “IT IS ORDERED,” and it merely represented what occurred at pretrial conference."

11.  Local Rule 58-6 of the Central District of California states: "Notation in the civil docket of entry of a memorandum of decision, an opinion of the Court, or a minute order of the Clerk shall not constitute entry of judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 58 and 79(a) unless specifically ordered by the judge."

For Part I:  http://www.prlog.org/11835465-ninth-circuit-gives-pro-se ...
For Part II:  http://www.prlog.org/11835473-ninth-circuit-gives-pro-se ...
For Part III:  http://www.prlog.org/11835892-ninth-circuit-gives-pro-se ...