Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Winters v. Jordan

April 16, 2009

BRENT WINTERS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DELORES JORDAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiffs move for emergency injunctive relief, Dckt. No. 5, and request to appear telephonically on their motion, Dckt. No. 4. The court has evaluated the merits of the substantive motion on the moving papers and finds that oral argument would not be of material assistance. Accordingly, the motion is submitted on the papers and the request to appear telephonically is denied as moot. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs' motion for emergency injunctive relief be denied and that the criminal actions which plaintiffs purport to have removed to this court must be remanded.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs, nine family members who proceed in pro se,*fn1 filed their complaint on February 23, 2009. The complaint names more than fifty defendants, including the Nevada County Adult Protective Services, local social workers, judges, court personnel, attorneys and law enforcement officers. The ninety-four page complaint recounts years of bitter legal disputes concerning plaintiffs' presence in the home of their mother, grandmother, and mother-in-law, defendant Virginia Armstrong, and alleges, inter alia, harassment by third parties, and the failure of Ms. Armstrong to fulfill promises she made to plaintiffs.

The complaint asserts civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, for unlawful detention, false arrest, false imprisonment, and unlawful search and seizure; the Fifth Amendment, for violation of plaintiffs' Miranda rights;*fn2 the First Amendment, for invasion of plaintiffs' privacy rights, and violation of their rights to petition and redress grievances; the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms; the Sixth Amendment's right to the assistance of counsel; and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Plaintiffs assert respondeat superior liability against Nevada County Sheriff Keith Royal, Nevada County Court Administrator Sean Metroka, Nevada County Adult Protective Services "Head" Jeffrey Brown, Nevada County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderson, and assert a Bivens action,*fn3 based on alleged violation of the Speedy Trial Act by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Central District of Illinois, which is separately prosecuting plaintiff Brent Winters, an attorney licensed in Illinois, for filing fraudulent tax documents.

Plaintiffs also assert violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.

Finally, plaintiffs allege several garden variety state law claims which include: personal injury, abuse of process, assault and battery, sexual harassment, trespass to property and chattels, excessive force, slander, libel, loss of consortium, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract against Virginia Armstrong.

Plaintiffs seek damages of "at least fifty million dollars," a declaration that defendants' conduct was unconstitutional, an order that will "[r]einstate and decree the enforcement of the terms of the Armstrong Living Trust dated 29 July 1994 as originally drawn up by Joe Q. Armstrong Sr. and Virginia Armstrong," "[f]ulfillment of the contract between the Winters and Virginia Armstrong," and that defendants be instructed "on fundamental and civil rights," and be required to participate in a "Twelve Week Anger Management Course . . . with proof of completion." Compl., at pp. 93-94.

The complaint also seeks the following permanent injunctive relief:

1. "[R]equir[e] defendant Keith Royal, Nevada County Sheriff, to adopt, and act upon, appropriate policies related to the hiring and supervision of its Deputies; Court Administrator Sean Metroka to adopt, and act upon, appropriate policies related to the hiring and supervision of court clerks and for Jeffrey Brown, Director of APS [Adult Protective Services], to adopt, and act upon, appropriate policies related to the hiring and supervision of APS employees;" and

2. "[R]equir[e] defendants to cease and desist their harassment and abuse of the Winters family and violations of their fundamental, constitutional, civil, and common-law rights." Compl., at p. 94.

In addition to filing their civil action in this court, plaintiffs have also filed two Notices of Removal. The first, Dckt. No. 6, purports to remove a pending criminal prosecutions from the Nevada County Superior Court. This criminal action is identified as "Case No. M09-0139 a,b," and is described by plaintiffs as a "misdemeanor-criminal action," filed against Susan and Cacey Winters. The removal notice argues that the prosecution is retaliatory and seeks to enjoin the state authorities and the state court from proceeding with the case. Dckt. No. 6, at pp. 4-5.

The second, Dckt. No. 8, purports to remove three "civil actions" identified as Case Nos. 74512, 74513, and 74515. Plaintiff do not reference these state civil actions in their complaint filed in this court, but in their "emergency" motion they describe the three state civil cases as ones in which restraining orders have been entered against plaintiffs Christy, Cacey and Susan Winters. Dckt. No. 4. They claim that they cannot receive fair hearings in state court in these pending state cases due to "institutional bias." Id. Plaintiffs claim that the pending criminal prosecution and the civil restraining order cases involve the same set of facts presented by their federal section 1983 action filed in this court and should be joined with the latter. Dckt. No. 6, at 8-9; Dckt. No. 8, at 4.

II. EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs seek several "emergency injunctions to prevent harassment, physical abuse, and bad faith prosecutions in retaliation for, and to deter the exercise of, constitutionally protected rights," Compl., at p. 1. The requested actions share the common characteristic of intervening in the state court decision-making process, by overturning existing state court orders, intervening in pending state court proceedings, and effectively ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.