Not This Ignacio
Some of my fans (I didn't know I had any) asked me about this case. No, I am not the Ignacio here... though you got to give him credit. He certainly has audacity...
Ignacio v. Judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 03-17181 (9th Cir. July 12, 2006)
Pro se appellant, Tevis R. Ignacio, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging that all the judges from the Ninth Circuit, other federal and state judges, public officials, and certain private individuals, conspired to dismiss
Ignacio’s previous lawsuits. We affirm the district court and hold, under the “rule of necessity,” that we are not disqualified from deciding Ignacio’s appeal. [That's a big surprise]
I
On May 17, 1999, a California superior court judge suspended Ignacio’s access to his minor son and divided up marital assets between Ignacio and his ex-wife. The superior court based the decision to deny Ignacio access to his son on a finding
that Ignacio was bipolar with paranoid-psychophrenic tendencies and that he refused to take medication. In addition, the court designated Ignacio as a “vexatious litigant” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 391, et seq.,
for repeatedly filing frivolous papers with the court. Ignacio’s designation as a vexatious litigant placed restrictions on his ability to file claims and appeals in California state court.
In what appears to be an attempt to avoid his vexatious litigant designation in state court, Ignacio filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Ignacio sued the superior court judge who presided over his
domestic case, his ex-wife, opposing counsel, and other judges and justices of the California trial and appellate courts, along with various other state and county officials. In that suit he attacked the determinations of the superior court and
asserted that the California “vexatious litigant” law was unconstitutional. In 2002, after the case was transferred to the Northern District Court’s Oakland Division, the complaint was dismissed without leave to amend by Judge Saundra IGNACIO v. ARMSTRONG 7693 Brown Armstrong. Judge Armstrong held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Ignacio’s claims attacking the state court decision and that any of his remaining claims were baseless. On November 21, 2002, we affirmed on the same grounds.
At some point, Ignacio moved to Reno, Nevada. On May 22, 2003, Ignacio attempted to remove his already decided divorce action to federal court in the District of Nevada. On June 12, 2003, the district court dismissed sua sponte the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ignacio appealed that ruling and we upheld the district court’s determination.
On October 29, 2003, Ignacio filed the present action also in the District of Nevada. Ignacio’s complaint names as defendants, first, “Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in their capacity as judges.” By that Ignacio apparently means all Ninth Circuit judges. His complaint names specifically a number of individual judges, including Chief Judge Schroeder who is a member of this panel, both personally and in their capacity as judges. He alleges that the judges of the Ninth Circuit, other judges including federal district court and California state court judges, the former California governor, United States senators
and other government officials, as well as private individuals involved in his California domestic dispute, conspired to have his previous cases dismissed. Ignacio specifically asserts that the Ninth Circuit judges “are culpable for their conscious parallelism of their legal duties by their wanton negligence and ultrahazardous activities of dissmissing [sic] a/or complaint(s) in a criminal conspiracy.”
On November 12, 2003 the district court dismissed the case and entered judgment. On November 17, 2003, Ignacio timely appealed.
....
Accordingly, because the complaint is nothing more than another attack on the California superior court’s determination in Ignacio’s domestic case and the related determinations made by the federal courts that they lack subject matter jurisdiction, the district court properly dismissed the case.
IV
The district court’s dismissal of Ignacio’s lawsuit is affirmed. We conclude that under the rule of necessity we may entertain Ignacio’s appeal. We conclude also that the district court determined properly that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to consider the action because Ignacio’s claims amounted to collateral attacks on a state court determination.
AFFIRMED.
For the the full decision, see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0317181p.pdf
**********
It wasn't me, Sarge... It was the one-armed man
Ignacio Sanchez
Ignacio v. Judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 03-17181 (9th Cir. July 12, 2006)
Pro se appellant, Tevis R. Ignacio, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging that all the judges from the Ninth Circuit, other federal and state judges, public officials, and certain private individuals, conspired to dismiss
Ignacio’s previous lawsuits. We affirm the district court and hold, under the “rule of necessity,” that we are not disqualified from deciding Ignacio’s appeal. [That's a big surprise]
I
On May 17, 1999, a California superior court judge suspended Ignacio’s access to his minor son and divided up marital assets between Ignacio and his ex-wife. The superior court based the decision to deny Ignacio access to his son on a finding
that Ignacio was bipolar with paranoid-psychophrenic tendencies and that he refused to take medication. In addition, the court designated Ignacio as a “vexatious litigant” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 391, et seq.,
for repeatedly filing frivolous papers with the court. Ignacio’s designation as a vexatious litigant placed restrictions on his ability to file claims and appeals in California state court.
In what appears to be an attempt to avoid his vexatious litigant designation in state court, Ignacio filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Ignacio sued the superior court judge who presided over his
domestic case, his ex-wife, opposing counsel, and other judges and justices of the California trial and appellate courts, along with various other state and county officials. In that suit he attacked the determinations of the superior court and
asserted that the California “vexatious litigant” law was unconstitutional. In 2002, after the case was transferred to the Northern District Court’s Oakland Division, the complaint was dismissed without leave to amend by Judge Saundra IGNACIO v. ARMSTRONG 7693 Brown Armstrong. Judge Armstrong held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Ignacio’s claims attacking the state court decision and that any of his remaining claims were baseless. On November 21, 2002, we affirmed on the same grounds.
At some point, Ignacio moved to Reno, Nevada. On May 22, 2003, Ignacio attempted to remove his already decided divorce action to federal court in the District of Nevada. On June 12, 2003, the district court dismissed sua sponte the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ignacio appealed that ruling and we upheld the district court’s determination.
On October 29, 2003, Ignacio filed the present action also in the District of Nevada. Ignacio’s complaint names as defendants, first, “Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in their capacity as judges.” By that Ignacio apparently means all Ninth Circuit judges. His complaint names specifically a number of individual judges, including Chief Judge Schroeder who is a member of this panel, both personally and in their capacity as judges. He alleges that the judges of the Ninth Circuit, other judges including federal district court and California state court judges, the former California governor, United States senators
and other government officials, as well as private individuals involved in his California domestic dispute, conspired to have his previous cases dismissed. Ignacio specifically asserts that the Ninth Circuit judges “are culpable for their conscious parallelism of their legal duties by their wanton negligence and ultrahazardous activities of dissmissing [sic] a/or complaint(s) in a criminal conspiracy.”
On November 12, 2003 the district court dismissed the case and entered judgment. On November 17, 2003, Ignacio timely appealed.
....
Accordingly, because the complaint is nothing more than another attack on the California superior court’s determination in Ignacio’s domestic case and the related determinations made by the federal courts that they lack subject matter jurisdiction, the district court properly dismissed the case.
IV
The district court’s dismissal of Ignacio’s lawsuit is affirmed. We conclude that under the rule of necessity we may entertain Ignacio’s appeal. We conclude also that the district court determined properly that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to consider the action because Ignacio’s claims amounted to collateral attacks on a state court determination.
AFFIRMED.
For the the full decision, see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0317181p.pdf
**********
It wasn't me, Sarge... It was the one-armed man
Ignacio Sanchez
posted by Ignacio | 10:10 AM
2 Comments:
LOL
LOL 2
Post a Comment
<< Home