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

March 28, 2012 - PRLog -- 32.   The Demos Order continues:

"During 1990, Demos submitted at least 24 sets of papers to this court including the seven currently before the court. The remaining seventeen (including documents entitled as petitions for writ of mandamus, writ of prohibition, writ of certiorari, requests for certificates of probable cause, original petitions for writ of habeas corpus, motions to compel and "orders to show cause") have been denied summarily without calling for a response from the respondent or the real party in interest."

33.   In comparison, Baldwin's simply filed:
      
a.   A Notice of Appeal in Case No. 11-57210 which was dismissed, denied, and closed without the opportunity to show this Court why it should not be dismissed and without the opportunity to petition this Court for rehearing.  Accordingly, Baldwin's First Amendment right to petition the court was summarily denied and her Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts and for due process of law was also denied.         
b.   A Notice of Appeal in Case No. 12-55081 which was dismissed, denied, and closed without the opportunity to show this Court why it should not be dismissed and without the opportunity to petition this Court for rehearing.  Accordingly, Baldwin's First Amendment right to petition the court was summarily denied and her Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts and for due process of law was also denied.         
c.   A Notice of Appeal in Case No. 12-55087 which was dismissed, denied, and closed without the opportunity to show this Court why it should not be dismissed and without the opportunity to petition this Court for rehearing.  Accordingly, Baldwin's First Amendment right to petition the court was summarily denied and her Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts and for due process of law was also denied.         
d.   An emergency Petition for First Amendment Writ in Case No. 12-70296 which was dismissed, denied, and closed without the opportunity to show this Court why it should not be dismissed and without the opportunity to petition this Court for rehearing.  Accordingly, Baldwin's First Amendment right to petition the court was summarily denied and her Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts and for due process of law was also denied.   

34.   The Demos Order continues:

"All have been denied after first ordering the papers filed without prepayment of fees. More significant, all of the petitions have been legally frivolous. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir.1984)."

35.   In comparison, Baldwin's "papers" were not filed without prepayment of fees because the timely application in forma pauperis she filed with the District Court on December 21, 2011, as instructed, was never ruled on.  On January 13, 2012, the district court transferred jurisdiction over the ruling on this application to this Court.  This Court has done nothing with it since then.  In fact, as of March 23, 2012, Fee Status states: "IFP Pending in COA."  (Please see Case No. 11-57210, the originating appeal upon which all other papers were related.)

36.   If this Court deemed Baldwin's appeal "frivolous," it certainly did not state as such in its February 15, 2012 Order or anywhere else.

37.   The Demos Order continues:

"Demos is a prolific litigant. See Demos v. Kincheloe, 563 F.Supp. 30 (E.D.Wash.1982). His last 24 petitions have generally concerned the alleged refusal of the United States District Courts for both the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington, the Washington Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court to accept his numerous and voluminous filings in forma pauperis."

38.   In comparison, as stated, supra, Baldwin only filed these petitions in forma pauperis because she had already paid the district court $1,050.00 and she was out of money.  Baldwin has not filed "24 petitions" and the subject of Baldwin's petitions are nothing even remotely related to an attempt "to accept numerous and voluminous filings in forma pauperis."

39.   The Demos Order continues:

"We note that the district courts in both the Eastern and Western District of Washington have entered standing orders against Demos, under which he must comply with certain prerequisites before being permitted to file actions in forma pauperis."

40.   In comparison, Baldwin does not have a standing order filed against her "under which she must comply with certain prerequisites before being permitted to file actions in forma pauperis."

41.   The Demos Order continues:  

"Because Demos did not appeal from the standing orders, they have become final." See Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.1990). However, Demos regularly attempts to file papers in district court (and apparently in state court too) without complying with the requirements of the standing orders, then files a petition here to attempt to compel the district court or state court to accept his complaints for filing without the payment of fees. As previously stated, no petition has been granted to date."

42.   Since Baldwin does not have a standing order filed against her, she has not violated any local rule or otherwise.

43.   The Demos Order continues:  
"On December 19, 1990, we ordered Demos to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further petitions seeking extraordinary writs in forma pauperis.  His response contains general and conclusory allegations regarding the United States District Courts' and the Washington state courts' derelictions, especially their issuance of what he refers to as nonappealable and prejudicial orders unsupported by reasons and law. Demos' response utterly fails to show that he has not abused the privilege of filing petitions in forma pauperis."

44.   In comparison, Baldwin never received an Order to Show Cause "why she should not be barred from filing further petitions seeking extraordinary writs in forma pauperis."  In fact, she was not even given the opportunity to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed before it was dismissed nor given the opportunity to petition this Court for rehearing.

45.   The Demos Order continues:  
"This court has the inherent power to restrict a litigant's ability to commence abusive litigation in forma pauperis. In consideration of Demos' history, we hold that he has abused the privilege of filing petitions in forma pauperis in this court. We therefore conclude that it is appropriate at this juncture to bar the filing of any new petitions seeking extraordinary writs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1651, 2253, or 2254 directed at the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington."

46.   In comparison, this Court's Order says nothing about Baldwin participating in "abusive litigation in forma pauperis."  Nor does it seek to restrict Baldwin's "filing of any new petitions seeking extraordinary writs."

47.   AFTER the Demos Court (a) deemed Demos a "prolific litigant"; (b) deemed he had filed "legally frivolous" documents; (c) deemed he had "abused the privilege of filing petitions in forma pauperis"; (d) Gave him an opportunity to show cause why he should be able to file further documents in forma pauperis; (e) barred him from filing "any new petitions seeking extraordinary writs"; (f) ordered the Clerk to return all his documents unfiled; and (g) required a $100 filing fee on all state court filings …. THEN the Court ruled that it "lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court."

48.   However, this Court believed that the Demos Order was relevant to Baldwin's request to reinstate her First Amendment rights.  Baldwin requests an explanation of same.

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-...