2231 S Court, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.

com/Human_Rights_Alert

Human Rights Alert

Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph Zernik, o, ou, email=jz12345@e arthlink.net, c=US Date: 2012.06.16 14:31:26 +03'00'

12-06-12 Erin K Baldwin v. The State Bar of California et al (5:11-cv-01300) Order on Request for Leave Attached:
# 1 Record Dkt #060 ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS AMENDED REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT FRANZ E. MILLERS MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Dkt #060 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) Page # 2

The NEF of Order (Dkt #060) is an invalid Notice, and therefore, the Order is false and deliberately misleading court record, part of a pattern of fraud on the court and racketeering in the US District Court, Central District of California, here, as in numerous other cases part of a pattern of patronizing by the US District Court of Corruption of the courts and the legal profession in California. READ MORE:
[1] 11-05-20 NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing) in the US Courts Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF) http://www.scribd.com/doc/55862403/ [2] 12-01-11 In RE: Ronald Gottschalk (2:11-mc-00284) minutes, orders, judgments issued with invalid NEFs are invalid court records http://www.scribd.com/doc/84376206/ [3] 10-04-19 Human Rights Alert (NG0) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States as incorporated into the UPR staff report, with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California". http://www.scribd.com/doc/38566837/ [4] 12-03-15 PRESS RELEASE: Evidence of widespread corruption of the US courts and proposed corrective measures submitted to the US House of Representatives http://www.scribd.com/doc/85481555/

Case 5:11-cv-01300-DMG Document 60

Filed 06/12/12 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1771

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL Case No. EDCV 11-01300 DMG Date June 12, 2012 Page 1 of 3

Title Erin K. Baldwin v. The State Bar of California, et al. Present: The Honorable

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NOT REPORTED Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present

VALENCIA VALLERY Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERSORDER RE PLAINTIFFS AMENDED REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT FRANZ E. MILLERS MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [Doc. ## 25, 26]; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER JOINDER AND/OR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AS TO DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED Plaintiff Erin K. Baldwin filed the operative second amended complaint, as corrected, on November 14, 2011 [Doc. # 20]. In her 269-page second amended complaint, Plaintiff raises at least 100 claims against more than 230 named defendantsincluding Hon. Franz E. Miller, a judge of the Orange County Superior Courtand 200 unnamed Doe defendants.1 On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended request for leave to amend her second amended complaint [Doc. # 25]. On December 12, 2012, Defendant Miller filed a motion to dismiss, which this Court took under submission on February 15, 2012 [Doc. # 52]. I. Defendant Millers Motion to Dismiss

Defendant Miller moves to dismiss Plaintiffs claims against him on the ground of judicial immunity. Although the caption of the second amended complaint specifies that Defendant Miller is being sued in his individual capacity as an adjunct professor of law at Whittier Law School, the body of the pleadings indicates that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Miller appear to stem from actions he took, rulings that he made, and judgments that he entered in his judicial capacity. See, e.g., Doc. # 20 at 246, 258(i), 967, 975. Although Plaintiff attempts to frame Defendant Millers alleged conduct as non-judicial acts, the
Plaintiffs second amended complaint is in violation of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires a claim for relief to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiffs second amended complaint also violates Local Rule 19-1, which provides that [n]o complaint or petition shall be filed that includes more than ten (10) Doe or fictitiously named parties. CV-90 CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk vv
1

Case 5:11-cv-01300-DMG Document 60

Filed 06/12/12 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1772

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL Case No. EDCV 11-01300 DMG Date June 12, 2012 Page 2 of 3

Title Erin K. Baldwin v. The State Bar of California, et al.

relevant conduct is clearly judicial in nature. (See, e.g., Oppn at 12 [Doc. # 44] (One of the first conscience-shocking non-judicial acts committed by Defendant Miller was . . . when he knowingly, recklessly and maliciously ordered a permanent injunction against Plaintiff . . . .).) Judges are absolutely immune from suit over acts performed in their judicial function.2 See, e.g., Tamas v. Dept of Soc. & Health Servs., 630 F.3d 833, 841-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004)). As it is clear that Plaintiff cannot state a viable claim against Defendant Miller in his official capacity, her claims against him for any actions taken by him in his role as a judicial officer are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend as to Defendant Miller solely in his individual capacity. Any amendment as to Defendant Miller in his individual capacity is due by July 3, 2012. Failure to file a timely amended complaint as to Defendant Miller in his individual capacity will result in the dismissal of the action as to Defendant Miller with prejudice. II. Misjoinder of Defendants

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), which allows for permissive joinder, provides that [p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. See also League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977). The first prong, the same transaction requirement, refers to similarity in the factual background of a claim. Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.2d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). Based on the complaints factual allegations, to the extent the Court understands them, Plaintiffs claims against the majority of the Defendants do not appear to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as that involving Defendant Miller, given that there seems to be little or no connection between most of the Defendants or the alleged harms.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant accepted a bribe in exchange for a favorable ruling. Doc. # 20 at 258(e), 689, 699. Even this would not pierce judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that a conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome of a judicial proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity extended to judges and prosecutors). In any event, these conclusory allegations fail to satisfy the federal pleading standards. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2008) (Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. (citation omitted)). CV-90 CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

Case 5:11-cv-01300-DMG Document 60

Filed 06/12/12 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1773

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL Case No. EDCV 11-01300 DMG Date June 12, 2012 Page 3 of 3

Title Erin K. Baldwin v. The State Bar of California, et al.

Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later than June 27, 2012, why defendants unrelated to the claim against Defendant Miller should not be dropped from this action for improper joinder. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20, 21; see also Coughlin, supra, 130 F.3d at 1351 (finding misjoinder where [e]ach claim raises potentially different issues, and must be viewed in a separate and individual light by the Court.) III. Failure to Prosecute

Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service for any defendant other than Defendant Miller and the time to do so expired in March 2012. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the courton motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiffmust dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.). Moreover, no other defendant besides Defendant Miller has appeared in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later than June 27, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to the remaining defendants. If Plaintiff agrees that certain defendants should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m), she need not address the misjoinder issue as to those defendants. The Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs amended motion for leave to amend as to the remaining defendants pending receipt of Plaintiffs response to the Order to Show Cause. IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTESGENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

Page 2/2

June 16, 2012

---- Forwarded Message ----From: "cacd_ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov" <cacd_ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov> To: ecfnef@cacd.uscourts.gov Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:23 PM Subject: Activity in Case 5:11-cv-01300-DMG Erin K Baldwin v. The State Bar of California et al Order on Request for Leave This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/12/2012 at 1:23 PM PDT and filed on 6/12/2012 Case Name: Erin K Baldwin v. The State Bar of California et al Case Number:5:11-cv-01300-DMG Filer: Document Number: 60 Docket Text: MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT FRANZ E. MILLER'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER JOINDER AND/OR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AS TO DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 12/6/2011, Plaintiff filed an amended request for leave to amend her second amended complaint [25]. On 12/12/2012, Defendant Hon. Franz E. Miller, a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, filed a motion to dismiss [26], which this Court took under submission on 2/15/2012 [52]. Judges are absolutely immune from suit over acts performed in their judicial function. As it is clear that Plaintiff cannot state a viable claim against Defendant Miller in his official capacity, her claims against him for any actions taken by him in his role as a judicial officer are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend as to Defendant Miller solely in his individual capacity. Any amendment as to Defendant Miller in his individual capacity is due by 7/3/2012. Failure to file a timely amended complaint as to Defendant Miller in his individual capacity will result in the dismissal of the action as to Defendant Miller with prejudice. Based on the complaint's factual allegations, to the extent the Court understands them, Plaintiff's claims against the majority of the Defendants do not appear to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as that involving Defendant Miller, given that there seems to be little or no connection between most of the Defendants or the alleged harms. Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later than 6/27/2012, why defendants unrelated to the claim against Defendant Miller should not be dropped from this action for improper joinder. Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service for any defendant other than Defendant Miller and the time to do so expired in March 2012. Moreover, no other defendant besides Defendant Miller has appeared in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later than 6/27/2012, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to the remaining defendants. If Plaintiff agrees that certain defendants should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m), she need not address the misjoinder issue as to those defendants. The Court defers ruling on Plaintiff's amended motion for leave to amend as to the remaining defendants pending receipt of Plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk) 5:11-cv-01300-DMG Notice has been electronically mailed to: Maurice Sylvan Kane mkane@cmda-law.com Erin K Baldwin erinbaldwin@rocketmail.com Sarah L Overton soverton@cmda-law.com Assistant US Attorney LA-CV darryl.musick@usdoj.gov_sumry, usacac.civil@usdoj.gov 5:11-cv-01300-DMG Notice has been delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by other means BY THE FILER to :