UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES DIVISION

Case No. 06-2085-FMC(SH)

 

 10, inclusive, in their individual )

and official Capacities )

_____________________Defendants )

OBJECTION

The Magistrates Report and Recomendation (MRR), page, line 1, asserts that plaintiifs lawsuit is rambling and disjointed, a statement which attempts to justify the misrepresentations of the lawsuit in the MMR. The statement serves to explain or justify the errors of misrepresentation in the MMR which are much too broad to be seen as accidental or inadvertant.

 The first of these intentional misinterpretations is designed to confuse the plaintiffs statements to the District Court Judge and create the impression that the complaint seeks relief which is not sought. The MRR, page 2 lines 14 to 15 states that "plaintiffs seek an injunction ordering defendants to provide them with arrest and booking records subpoenaed in 1998". That statement, nor anthing like it, is contained anywhere in plaintiffs pleadings related to injunctive relief. Not in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) and not in the Application for injunctive relief. This misinterpretation renders most of the MMR invalid relating to the plaintiffs lawsuit. The FAC mentions arrest and booking records in paragraph 9, 23 and 24 related to specific performance and not at all in the Application for injunctive relief. It is not possible the Magistrate has made this error by mistake. The arrest and booking records are mentioned in the FAC only relating to the process of defining the specific performance demanded, page 21, lines 12 through 17.

 The MMR, page 2 lines 15 and 16, page 3 lines 1 through 6 assert that plaintiffs seeks an order compelling the COUNTY to "cooperate with plaintiffs through the creation of a non-profit corporation to develop apporpriate treatments specific to historic needs of plaintiff and the general public, which the county can fund through payments of up to 20 million dollars over 5 years time." [FAC 21-22]. The MMR represents (3) as an alternative to (2) ommiting (1) altogether. This is prohibitively selective in the rendering of justice because it ignores (1), (page 21, lines 23 and 24.) "that defendant be required specifically to perform said duties," or the duties described on page 20, lines 21 and 22 pursuant to CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY code § 1370.4. That particular California state statuate is not mentioned anywhere in the MMR, again rendering the MMR irrelevant to plaintiffs lawsuit. To skip number (1) and to proceed to number(2) and make (3) alternative to (2) serves to entirely misrepresent the plaintiffs lawsuit and makes it appear as a tort claim which it is not.

 The first sought relief has the plaintiffs seeking that federal courts compel the COUNTY to simply follow state laws. Contingent to that, if the COUNTY should somehow be able to justify to the federal court its inability to follow laws, which plaintiffs have proven this historical non compliance with state laws, the federal court is asked to support the compulsion of the COUNTY to assist in the creation of a non profit to recieve the funds, protecting lives and saving the COUNTY public funds. Meaning that the couty must first justify to the Federal court its inabilty to follow those laws. It has not done so in its defenses and leaves specific performance All monetary mention is secondary to the requested relief or gaining the COUNTY's compliance with state law but the MMR does not state that, instead misrepresenting the plaintiffs lawsuit a second time as a monetary claim which then artificially creates relevance for the rest of the MMR, primarily res judicata and statute of limitations addressing (2) of page 3, lines 9 and 10 of the MMR.

 Plaintiffs are unable to respond to the MMR past these observations of the mistreprestantions because the MMR is not relative to the plaintiffs law suit. The defendants motion to dismiss intentionally misinterprets plaintiffs lawsuit to effect the same misrepresentation so defenses to a lawsuit that does not exist can be made. The MMR is in essence defending the defendants defenses which are not relative to the plaintiffs suit.

 Plaintiffs provide instead, evidence of plaintiffs Ruiz's damages and Plaintiff Ouseys damages, attached to this objection as Plaintiffs Ruiz, Ousey, and Cousins damages alleged must be taken as fact intil disproven. The damages are dynamic, with broad physical and psychological symtoms/impacts and time to document then adequately must be allowed to serve justice. Allowing justice to be served inthis way promises great benfit to the public interests related to the specific performance requested. The MMR does not address this factor in any way and only considers the defendants defenses within an artifically created environment of relevance.

The MMR. page 3, lines 11 to 12, (3) regarding the F.O.I.A. is addressed by the fact plaintiffs Ruiz, Ousey and Cousin have recently learned of the F.O.I.A and the tolling has just begun. Although it is true that the words "municipal liability, conspiracy" do not appear as the MMR asserts anf this fact is addressed in the FAC, "minor deficiencies, errors and ommisions" (page 19 lines 10 through 20") and plaintiffs Brown and Ouusey are "Qualified Individuals". Plaintiffs Cousins and Ruiz if evaluated would also qualify. With discretionary balancing of public interest and F.R.Civ.P. 61. Harmless Error, this can be accepted without impacting the rights of the defendants considering their lawful duty to the public and the public interests. Number (4) of the same paragraph may be true (Counties are often considered a branch of the State) however, the defendants always have a duty defined by law, Constitutional, federal and state, and are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 to legal action compelling obeyance of laws enforceble in federak courts. Immunity by all actors is relenquished when their actions are not pursuant to the U.S. Constitution or laws made under it, even defendant Sterne. The MMR misrepresents plaintiffs claim as a tort intentionally so that defendant Sterne might falsely enjoy the immune status but under a claim for injunctive relief, that judicial immunity does not exist nor does the statuate of limitations bar the court from ordering the requested relief.

Page 4 of the MMR contains a large error regarding F.O.I.A as it asserts the plaintiffs claims are based on the County Mental Health departments failure to respond to requests relating to the proposal of an experimental treatment. Plaintiff did not make the F.O.I.A request to the County Mental Health. The senior director and the chief medical doctor wanted to respond, pursuant to CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY code § 1370.4 but defendants Rose or Starke prevented them from doing so. The F.O.I.A. was served on the supervisors generally and Rose specifically. A time stamped copy dated April 18, 2000 is attached as EXHIBIT TWENTY-NINE.

 The MMR at page 9 asserts that 5 U.S.C. §552 (a)(6)(A) controls the statute of limitations. This is erroneous and only applies if the lawful procedure is followed agency, which iin this case was not observed "shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefore, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination;" Plaintiff received no such notification which is lawfully due under 5 U.S.C. §552 (a)(2)(c).

1. Plaintiff has a disability, Attention Deficit Disorder as documented in his MOTION REQUESTING APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL. Since the evaluation in 2000 the condition has worsened. From 1996 plaintiff has continually sought attorneys to advise, counsel, represent on a contingency basis without success. Attorneys will not advise plaintiff for cash payment. Eight pages of written referrals and refusals from attorneys were intended to labeled as EXHIBIT TWO with his request for appointment of council. Plaintiff could not locate the letters, forgot what he had intended and to renumber his exhibits. Due to his disability plaintiff was unable to prepare his ADDENDUM OF EXHIBITS prior to the Magistrates recommendations, he did not know this was required. This has resulted in the 30 pages of exhibits establishing a pattern of deprival of due process being stricken from record. The plaintiff with the assistance of librarians at law libraries has been unable to decipher the local court rules to determine the process or schedule of Magistrate review or forma in pauperis action. The handout titled PROCEDURAL INFORMATION FOR FILING A NEW CIVIL ACTION/COMPLAINT has no information concerning this process or schedule.

2. Without counsel plaintiff is discriminated against on the basis of his disability.

Code of Federal Regulations, TITLE 28--JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PART 35--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES--

Subpart B--General Requirements

Sec. 35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination. (a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity. [Revised as of July 1, 1999]

3. Plaintiffs case is dominated by a very unpopular issue basically repugnant to the average person for reasons not welcomed by most, attorneys or even judicial officers. For example in the plaintiffs case of material fact constituting deprivation of his Fourteenth amendment right and due process by the defendants failure to appear upon Constitutional legal force of subpoena, the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE quotes in bold and uses the word "denied" and "denial" 5 times (p. 2 L.18 & 24, p.3 L. 1, 1, p.4 L.13) and not the more proper legally correct words, "deprivation of right to equal protection and due process" In this case the Magistrates words are similar to the defendants literal posturing. The words taunt, mocking the pro se plaintiff as if incompetent and therefore unworthy of any recognition of his constitutional rights as a citizen seeking redress of grievance. This is likely due to plaintiffs disclosure of a previous attempt to file this complaint forma in pauperis in 1999 in a reversible error of the court. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir.) In that attempt to file this complaint is located the specific language that has caused the Magistrates repeated use of the word "denial". The instant case has municipality violating the plaintiffs Constitutional rights and in the plaintiffs OPPOSITION to the MOTION TO DISMISS (p.2 L.5, 13) the plaintiff has stated that national security interests are dependent upon verifications that a proper trial can bring. The Magistrate makes no mention of this in his report.

3. Plaintiffs case is dominated by a very unpopular issue, a part of the original conspiracy described in 220298, Magistrates report (P.2 L. 13, 15). The conspiracy described in the civil case in Santa Barbara County has continued unimpeded to this date injuring plaintiff repeatedly. On November 19, 2001 plaintiff was assaulted by another tenant at plaintiffs residence and currently plaintiff cannot collect payment from employment.

4. The Magistrates report (P.2 L. 22) misconstrues and diminishes evidence of EXHIBIT ONE when stating the Records Supervisor on August 31 "did not maintain records".

EXHIBIT ONE (August 31, 1998 letter) second paragraph,

"I have been in contact with Santa Barbara County Counsel and have been advised to return your check for $15.00 and to advise you that I do not have the records for the period you have requested."

The Records Supervisor expressly states that they were "advised" by the Defendant Stark to "advise you" that the records were not in possession. Direct interference with due process by the defendant. In the Magistrate judges REPORT (p.3 L.12, 13 & 18, 19) it states that "material fact are taken as true" and "where plaintiff appears pro se the complaint must be construed liberally so as to afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." If the STANDARD OF REVIEW or its quoted excerpts aforementioned and the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION control the recommendations, and the prima facie material evidence of EXHIBIT ONE, proving plaintiffs allegations as fact, then the Magistrates recommendation should refer to it as fact rather than allegation and the defendants MOTION TO DISMISS denied.

5. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, Section 2, Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 1. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity arising under this Constitution." Recognition of plaintiffs, lawful Constitutional rights, undiminished as they simply read, is essential if the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI. section 3 is to apply to a judicial officer (OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS cite is erroneous)

"and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Constitution does not define a statute of limitations for violations of Constitutional Rights while the Constitution specifically disallows state law to be used. The Fourteenth amendment nor Title 42 § 1983 contains any word indicating a statute of limitations can be applied.

6. Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 968, (9th Cir. 1983), reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court held that "Analysis of extent of Constitutional deprivation is not exact science capable of quantification but rather is qualitative in nature." Plaintiff in the instant case points out that "quantity" applies best to overall impact of damages, whereas quality can easier be equated to the nature of the damage and thus more suited to considering elements refining the evaluation of impact(s). The ongoing conspiracy of discrimination and deprival of due process cannot be evaluated by the last overt act of the defendants conspiracy when the original conspiracy of case 220298 threatens plaintiff and the plaintiff suffers from this on a daily basis.

DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN

I Christopher A. Brown Declare on December 12, 2001 under the penalty of the laws of perjury of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. .

Date;

Christopher A. Brown

 

 Back to the complaint CV06-2085

Back to the Purpose of Law