US District Court for the Western District of WA. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 William Scheidler, Plaintiff, V US District Court for the Western District of WA. James Avery, individually and in his official capacity as Kitsap County s Assessor; Alan Miles, individually and in his official capacity as Kitsap County s deputy prosecutor; M. Karlynn Haberly, Individually and in her official capacity; Kay S. Slonim, Individually and in her official capacity and Jane and John Does, Defendants Case # :1-cv RBL Objection: Court s order, Dkt 55, for misconstruing the Ninth Circuit s reversal and remand findings. AND, Motion to Disqualify WA State Bar Associates from hearing this case. I. AUTHORITY: 8 U.S. Code Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge (a Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1 Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; Objection and Motion for disqualification. Page 1

2 1 II. FACTS: November 19, 014, the Clerk for the 9 th circuit issued a letter [Dkt 1] to Judge Leighton and all parties that Plaintiff s motion for reconsideration, dkt 4, had not been properly disposed and the Appeal was premature.. November 6, 014, Judge Leighton responded to the Clerk s letter stating, at line 1, page 1, Vitriol is not a substitute for logic. The motion for reconsideration [Dkt. 4] is frivolous on its face. The motion is Denied. March 0, 015, the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals, comprised of judges who do NOT belong to the WA State Bar reversed and remanded Judge Leighton s dismissal with prejudice of Scheidler case. The 9 th s memorandum stated the merits of Scheidler s APA must be addressed and to provide Scheidler the opportunity to amend his other state and federal causes of action. The Ninth s memorandum is a scathing commentary on WA State s legal enterprise, including WA State Bar Associates who serve in the Federal Courts as judges. 4. On April, 015, the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate. 5. ON April 8, 015, Judge Leighton, in response to the mandate, issued an order claiming, line 18-1, that the Ninth Circuit held that this Court failed to specifically address whether it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction (8 U.S.C. 167 over Plaintiff s petition for review of the Board of Tax Appeals September 6, 01 decision. Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint should specifically ask the court to do so, if he indeed seeks this Court s review of that decision. 6. In truth, the Ninth Circuit s memorandum states, page, Moreover, the district court did not address the merits of Scheidler s petition for review of the Board of Tax Appeal s September 6, 01 decision, which Scheidler incorporated by reference into his amended complaint. Nor did the district court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See City of Chicago v Int l Coll. Of Surgeons, 5 U.S. 156, (1997 (supplemental jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 167 extends to review of state administrative agency determinations. We therefore reverse and remand for review of the agency decision. (Emphasis is mine 8 Objection and Motion for disqualification. Page

3 Furthermore Judge Leighton captions the case citing only James Avery as Defendant. When in fact Scheidler is suing WA State Bar Associates who serve in various public office. Judge Leighton states, Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint to state a viable claim against the Defendant. (Emphasis is mine 8. The Ninth circuit maintained the proper captioning of Scheidler case in each document issued. The Ninth made no finding that any defendant was improperly served, nor was there any defense raised of improper service to indicate defendants Alan Miles, WSBA #6961, individually and in his official capacity as Kitsap County s deputy prosecutor; M. Karlynn Haberly, WSBA #8674, Individually and in her official capacity; Kay S. Slonim, WSBA #1414, Individually and in her official capacity are now excluded from Scheidler s claims and, apparently, must be reserved. 9. To emphasis the deceit in Leighton eliminating those other defendants, on April, 015, WA State Assistant Attorney General, NATHAN KORTOKRAX #8555, filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Kay Slonim, WSBA # III. CONCLUSION: This re-captioning as a way to dismiss Scheidler s complaint against Leighton s associates of the WA State Bar, and the comment aimed at the Clerk of the 9 th circuit to discredit Scheidler by saying Vitriol is not a substitute for logic and grossly distorting the Ninth Circuit s mandate, is further and compelling evidence Judge Leighton is prejudice or incompetent certainly he is not of the character of a District Court Judge. as in criminal and quasi-criminal cases, 1 an impartial decision maker is an essential right in civil proceedings as well. "The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness... by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him." 1 Tumey v. Ohio, 7 U.S. 510 (197; In re Murchison, 49 U.S. 1 (1955. Goldberg v. Kelly, 97 U.S. 54, 71 (1970. Marshall v. Jerrico, 446 U.S. 8, 4 (1980; Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (198. Objection and Motion for disqualification. Page

4 1 IV. REQUESTED RELIEF The unmistakable prejudice in having Judge Leighton, a WA State Bar Associate # 6800, as judge over a case in which WA State Bar Associates are Defendants and then, in the blatantly deceitful way Judge Leighton is trying to exclude his Bar Associates as defendants, by re-captioning the case, and ordering a Second Amended Complaint against the Defendant (James Avery, without any logic whatsoever in how all the other defendants have vanished, is reprehensible. 11. But there is more, Judge Leighton in his Order intentionally misstates the memorandum issued by the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals so as to curtail Scheidler s due process rights to have his APA claim decided by the District Court, and not be forced to re-argue what the 9 th Circuit has already ruled upon; it is all beyond the pale. 1. An impartial decision-maker must be assigned; one who takes the role of Judge as a most solemn obligation to a just society. I, the undersigned, attest that the foregoing information is true to the best of my knowledge. Signed this April 8, 015, _ William Scheidler Plaintiff pro per Lidstrom Place E Port Orchard, WA billscheidler@wavecable.com Objection and Motion for disqualification. Page 4

5 Case :1-cv RBL Document 55 Filed 04/8/15 Page 1 of 1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON WILLIAM SCHEIDLER, v. JAMES AVERY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Plaintiff, Defendant. CASE NO. C RBL ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on remand from the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit held that it was error to dismiss Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint without giving him an opportunity to amend. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint to state a viable claim against the Defendant. The Ninth Circuit also held that this Court failed to specifically address whether it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction (8 U.S.C. 167 over Plaintiff s petition for review of the Board of Tax Appeals September 6, 01 decision. Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint should specifically ask the court to do so, if he indeed seeks this Court s review of that decision. 4 ORDER - 1

6 Case :1-cv RBL Document 55 Filed 04/8/15 Page of The Amended complaint addressing these two issues shall be filed within 1 days of this Order, or the case will be dismissed without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 8 th day of April, 015. A RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER -

7 Case :1-cv RBL Document 49 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM SCHEIDLER, No v. Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. :1-cv RBL Western District of Washington, Tacoma JAMES AVERY, individually and in his official capacity as Kitsap County s Assessor; et al., ORDER Defendants - Appellees. The district court entered a final order of dismissal on January 9, 01 and entered a final judgment on January 0, 01. On February 6, 01, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the district court s January 15, 01 order denying appellant s motion for recusal (docket #40. On February 1, 01, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order (docket #4. On February 7, 01, the district court entered an order (docket #45. The docket entry for docket #45 reflects that the district court denied docket #40 and docket #4 on February 7, 01. A review of the February 7, 01 order, however, reflects that the order only disposed of the February 6, 01 motion for reconsideration of the order denying appellant s motion for recusal (docket #40. MF/Pro Se

8 Case :1-cv RBL Document 49 Filed 11/19/14 Page of The February 1, 01 motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order (docket #4 remains pending before the district court. The court s records reflect that the notice of appeal was filed during the pendency of a timely filed motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a(4. The notice of appeal is therefore ineffective until entry of the order disposing of the last such motion outstanding. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a(4. Accordingly, appellate proceedings other than mediation shall be held in abeyance pending the district court s resolution of the pending February 1, 01 motion. See Leader Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Indus. Indem. Ins. Co., 19 F.d 444, 445 (9th Cir Within 5 days after the district court s ruling on the pending motion, appellant shall notify this court in writing of the ruling and shall advise whether appellant intends to prosecute this appeal. To appeal the district court s ruling on the post-judgment motion, appellant must file an amended notice of appeal within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court. MF/Pro Se

9 Case :1-cv RBL Document 49 Filed 11/19/14 Page of FOR THE COURT: MOLLY C. DWYER CLERK OF COURT By: Monica Fernandez Motions Attorney/Deputy Clerk MF/Pro Se

10 Case = , 11/6/014, ID = 99787, DktEntry =, Page 1 of

11 Case = , 11/6/014, ID = 99787, DktEntry =, Page of

12 Case = , 11/6/014, ID = 99787, DktEntry =, Page of