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

March 30, 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. 30) filed by Defendant Paul Pfingst ("Pfingst") and the Motion to Disqualify District Judge of Southern District California Judge William Q. Hayes and all District Court Judges of California (ECF No. 32) filed by Mary Charles Robinson ("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 January 24, 2011, this Court issued an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss as to Defendants Greg S. Maizlish, Bill Kolender, and Joy Lopez on the grounds that Plaintiff's civil rights Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and is barred because a judgment in Plaintiff's favor would necessarily imply her conviction was invalid. (ECF No. 28).

On February 1, 2011, Defendant Paul Pfingst filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 30). On February 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Disqualify District Judge of Southern District California Judge William Q. Hayes and all District Court Judges of California (ECF No. 32). On March 3, 2011, Defendant Pfingst filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 34).

I. Motion to Disqualify filed by Plaintiff Robinson

Plaintiff contends that this Court should be disqualified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)-(b). (ECF No. 32 at 2). Plaintiff contends that the Court's dismissal of Defendants from her Complaint is evidence of bias and prejudice against Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that this Court's dismissal of Defendants Greg S. Maizlish, Bill Kolender, and Joy Lopez violated criminal law.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a district judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Pursuant to § 455(b), a district judge must also disqualify himself "[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 455(b). The standard for recusal under § 455 is "whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotations omitted). "[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute [a] valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

In this case, the Plaintiff's sole basis for asserting that this Court should disqualify is her disagreement with the Court's prior rulings in this case. Plaintiff has failed to show that "a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that [this Court's] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Mayes, 729 F.2d at 607. The Motion to Disqualify (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.

II. Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Pfingst

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.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Paul Pfingst was the District Attorney of the County of San Diego. 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. "[The abuse was intentionally committed by San Diego, County, District Attorney [Pfinsgt] ...." Id. at ¶ 31.

The Complaint alleges that on April 18, 2002, a California governor's warrant was filed which included "a totally different charge" against Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 24. 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.

Defendant Pfingst seeks to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff challenges a state court conviction which has not been invalidated, that Plaintiff's claims are time-barred, and that the ...


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.