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.

Mary Charles Robinson v. San Diego Former District Attorney Paul Pfingst

January 24, 2011

MARY CHARLES ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SAN DIEGO FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL PFINGST, IN HIS PROFESSIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES;
GREG S. MAIZLISH, PUBLIC DEFENDER IN HIS PROFESSIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; BILL KOLENDER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF, IN HIS PROFESSIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES;
LENICE JOY LOPEZ, SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF, IN HER PROFESSIONAL "SHERIFF DETECTIVE" AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:

ORDER

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) filed by Defendants Greg S. Maizlish, Bill Kolender, and Lenice Joy Lopez; the Motion of Conflict of Interest (ECF No. 14) filed by Mary Charles Robinson ("Plaintiff"); the Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default (ECF No. 18) filed by Defendant Paul Pfingst; the Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 19) filed by Plaintiff, and the Motion to Dismiss Defendant Paul Pfingst's Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default Due to Lack of Standing (ECF No. 25) filed by Plaintiff.

BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2010, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint. (ECF No. 1). On September 10, 2010, Defendants Greg S. Maizlish, Bill Kolender, and Joy Lopez filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 8). On September 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 9). On September 29, 2010, Defendants filed a Reply. (ECF No. 11).

On October 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion of Conflict of Interest. (ECF No. 14). On October 25, 2010, Defendants filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 15).

On October 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request for Clerk's entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Paul Pfingst. (ECF No. 16). On October 27, 200, the Clerk entered default. (ECF No. 17). On October 28, 2010, Defendant Pfingst filed a Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default. (ECF No. 18). On October 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Pfingst. (ECF No. 19). On November 17, 2010, Pfingst filed a Reply in Support of the Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Default. (ECF No. 21). On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Surreply.*fn1 (ECF No. 23).

On December 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant Paul Pfingst's Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default Due to Lack of Standing. (ECF No. 25). On December 23, 2010, Defendants filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 27).

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff asserts a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000,000 for Constitutional violations during her arrest, detention, confinement. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 33-34). Plaintiff asserts claims for the following: (1) retaliation against Plaintiff for "accusing Stafford, [Virginia] Department of Social Services of in differential (sic) treatment" by maliciously extraditing and prosecuting her with "no probable cause"; (2) wrongful arrest and "finding [Plaintiff] guilty before trial;" (3) conspiracy to deny Plaintiff her Constitutional rights by arresting, detaining, and extraditing her; (4) malicious abuse of process because Defendants knew that "the complaint initiated was groundless;" (5) and denial of access to the courts because "attempts at seeking relief in State and Federal Courts were thwarted by refusing to hear claim, restricting pro se litigation and den[ying] publically financed assistance." Id. at 25-33.

On October 2, 2000, Plaintiff was indicted in Stafford, Virginia and charged with false application and welfare fraud. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2. On January 19, 2001, Plaintiff's bond was revoked and the Governor of Virginia issued a warrant for her arrest. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7. On April 24, 2001, the Governor of California issued a warrant for Plaintiff's arrest. Id. at ¶ 9. On March 20, 2001, Plaintiff was "first apprehended" on the charges from Virginia while she was incarcerated in Riverside, California. Id. at ¶ 11. On March 23, 2010, Plaintiff declined to sign a waiver of extradition. Id. at ¶ 12. A fugitive complaint was filed against her and "San Diego County District Attorney and Stafford County Commonwealth deprived [Plaintiff] the right to access the courts." Id at ¶¶ 13-14, 18. A copy of the fugitive complaint was filed in the San Diego Superior Court which contained the signature of Sheriff Detective Lenice Joy Lopez and did not contain a signature from a District Attorney; therefore, Lopez "impersonated a district Attorney." Id. at ¶¶ 21, 27. On April 18, 2002, a California governor's warrant was filed which included "a totally different charge" against Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 24. Plaintiff's public defender Greg Maizlish "did not lift a hand to defend [Plaintiff]." Id. at ¶ 26. Defendants "worked in concert to deceive the Court and change the charge to read differently . to extradite [Plaintiff] illegally to Stafford, Virginia. Id. at ¶ 25. On December 3, 2001, Plaintiff "was forced to sign [a] plea agreement .." Id. at ¶ 105. Defendants knew that the charges against Plaintiff were "groundless." Id. at ¶ 138. Plaintiff claims that her "attempts in seeking relief in State and Federal Court were thwarted ...." Id. at ¶ 141.

I. Motion to Dismiss

Defendants Maizlish, Kolender, and Lopez seek to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff challenges a state court conviction which has not been invalidated and Plaintiff's claims are time-barred. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's claims relate to her extradition and conviction which occurred on December 3, 2002, approximately eight years ago. Defendants contend that the statute of limitations has expired under either California of Virginia law.

Plaintiff contends that there was a "recent discovery of Lenice Joy Lopez impersonating a District Attorney and filing the fugitive complaint when she had no legal authority to do so." (ECF No. 9 at 9). Plaintiff contends that she was "unaware at the time" that Lopez was prosecuting the fugitive complaint against her instead of a District Attorney, as a result the charges against Plaintiff are "void." Id. at 11, 13. Plaintiff also contends that there is no statute of limitations on fraud claims.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal ...


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.