Ninth Circuit Pro Se, Erin Baldwin, Demands Action By Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

April 12, 2012 - PRLog -- Since the day she filed her Complaint seeking redress of violations of her constitutional rights, Journalist and Pro Se litigant, Erin Baldwin, has experienced ongoing violations from the very federal forum she counted on to help her - the Ninth Circuit.  

Baldwin's First Amendment right to petition the courts and her 14th Amendment right to access the courts have been repeatedly trampled.  There are two primary reasons.

One, the Ninth Circuit has chosen to protect Baldwin's defendants including The State Bar of California, The California Department of Real Estate, County of Orange, County of San Bernardino, and publicly-traded landlord/REIT UDR, Inc. .    

Two, Erin Baldwin is a Pro Se litigant and the Ninth Circuit has well-established customs, policies and procedures in place to quickly dispose of all pro se Complaints.  Baldwin is not alone - thousands of unrepresented litigants come to the Ninth Circuit every year seeking justice and are deprived of same.  Accordingly, Baldwin is seeking "suspect class status" for pro se litigants to prevent further discrimination.    

On April 11, 2012, Erin Baldwin filed the following Motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals demanding final judgments and rulings on her pending appeals (Case Nos. 11-57210, 12-55081, 12-55087, and 12-70296) as her petitions have otherwise been ignored by the Ninth Circuit to prevent her from appealing her claims to the United States Supreme Court.  

Baldwin has demanded immediate review and decision by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski due to egregious misconduct in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Central District Court of California.

COMES PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ERIN K. BALDWIN ("Baldwin") to move this Court for a Statement of Decision as to Matters Pending in Case Nos. 11-57210, 12-55081, 12-55087, and 12-70296.  These issues are set forth below and require the immediate review and decision of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and/or a five-judge Merits Panel comprised of active Article III Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judicial Officers.  

   1.   United States Supreme Court Rule 13 states:

"Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals … is timely when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment. […]

"If a petition for rehearing is timely filed in the lower court by any party […] the time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari for all parties […] runs from the date of the denial of rehearing or, if rehearing is granted, the subsequent entry of judgment."

   2.   As of this writing, Baldwin has not received "entry of the judgment" in the four appeals pending before this Court.  Instead, Baldwin has received questionable orders prepared by motions attorneys on behalf of the Motions Panel sitting in February, 2012, i.e., Circuit Judges Mary Schroeder, Edward Leavy and Robert Clifton.  In addition, Baldwin timely filed Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc in response to said questionable orders and, to date, has not received a ruling on any of these petitions.  

   3.   Over a month ago, on March 7, 2012, Baldwin requested clarification of the issues set forth in ¶2, supra, via certified correspondence to the Clerk of this Court, Molly Dwyer (who failed to docket same), with copies to the Clerks of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Circuit Judges Mary Schroeder, Edward Leavy and Robert Clifton.  Although Baldwin obtained confirmation from the United States Postal Service that all recipients timely received said correspondence, to date, Baldwin has not received a response from anyone.

   4.   Baldwin's March 7, 2012 correspondence included a hard copy of each of the questionable Orders and a hard copy of her Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc.  This correspondence stated:

   "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 issues 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. With the earnest appreciation for your consideration, I deliver these materials and request a response."

   5.   It appears that this Court is intentionally depriving Baldwin of the opportunity to seek redress and review of the United States Supreme Court.  

   6.   By failing to provide a final judgment on Baldwin's appeals in Case Nos. 11-57210, 12-55081, 12-55087, and 12-70296, this Court is interfering in United States Supreme Court Rule 13, supra, and is depriving Baldwin of her First Amendment right to petition for a redress of grievances and her Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts.  

   7.   By failing to rule on Baldwin's Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc in Case Nos. 11-57210, 12-55081, 12-55087, and 12-70296, this Court is interfering in United States Supreme Court Rule 13, supra, and is depriving Baldwin of her First Amendment right to petition for a redress of grievances and her Fourteenth Amendment right to access the courts.  

   8.   Baldwin seeks a final judgment in each of her appeals in Case Nos. 11-57210, 12-55081, 12-55087, and 12-70296.

   9.   Baldwin seeks a ruling in each of her Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc timely filed in Case Nos. 11-57210, 12-55081, 12-55087, and 12-70296.

   10.   Baldwin requests said judgments and rulings at this Court's earliest convenience so as not to further prejudice her ability to seek Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court pursuant to United States Supreme Court Rule 13.

This pleading is available for viewing at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/88972452/NINTH-CIRCUIT-PRO-SE-E...

It is unconscionable that anyone would simply be ignored in a court of law hoping they would grow frustrated and give up.  Erin Baldwin has only begun to fight and will not give up until her example gives equal justice to all pro se litigants now and into the future.