United States District Court, C.D. California
KHALIL M. CHAOUI, Plaintiff,
CITY OF GLENDORA, et al., Defendants
Khalil M. Chaoui, an Enrolled Tribal Member, Yamassee Muscogee Tribe, Treaty of Camp Holmes, 24th August, 1835 (7 Stat. 474), Plaintiff, Pro se, Glendora, CA.
For City of Glendora, in its corporate capacity, Joseph A. Santoro, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Glendora, Karen K. Davis, in her capacity as Council Member for Council of the City of Glendora, Douglas F. Tessitor, in his capacity as Council Member for Council of the City of Glendora, Gene Murabito, in his capacity as Council Member for Council of the City of Glendora, Chris Jeffers, in his capacity as City Manager of the City of Glendora, City of Glendora Police Department, in its corporate capacity, Robert M. Castro, in his capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Glendora, Nancy Miranda, in her personal, Corporal Nancy Miranda, Badge Number 3599, Police Officer, official capacity, Jonathan Drake, in his personal, Officer Jonathan Drake, Badge Number 4308, Police Officer, official capacity, Judy M. Nelson, in her capacity as Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Glendora, Defendants: D Wayne Leech, LEAD ATTORNEY, Leech and Associates, El Monte, CA.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES F. EICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action on December 23, 2013. Plaintiff's claims arise out of a September 15, 2013 incident in which, following a traffic collision, Plaintiff was arrested and cited for failing to have a valid California driver's license in his possession. The Complaint alleges that an " International Driver Permit, " purportedly issued by an alleged Native American tribe, assertedly allows Plaintiff to drive in California without a valid California driver's license. The Complaint names as Defendants: (1) the City of Glendora; (2) City of Glendora Mayor Joseph A. Santoro; (3) City of Glendora Mayor Pro Tem Judy M. Nelson; (4) City of Glendora Council Members Karen K. Davis, Douglas F. Tessitor and Gene Murabito; (5) City of Glendora City Manager Chris Jeffers; (6) the City of Glendora Police Department; (7) City of Glendora Chief of Police Robert M. Castro; and (8) two City of Glendora police officers, Nancy Miranda and Jonathan Drake. Plaintiff sues the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Members, City Manager and Chief of Police in their official capacities, and sues Defendants Miranda and Drake in their official and personal capacities.
On January 21, 2014, the City, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, the City Council Members, the City Manager and the Glendora Police Department filed an Answer.
On January 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a three-page " Petition and Motion for Summary Judgement [sic], " unsupported by any evidence. Because Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment violated Local Rules, the Court denied the motion without prejudice on January 31, 2014.
On February 25, 2014, Defendants Miranda and Drake filed an Answer.
On June 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed " Plaintiff's Affidavit for Motion to Obviate Need for Depositions and Interrogatories and Move to Trial." On June 30, 2014, the Court denied this motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.
On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a " Motion De Novo with Emergence of New Facts, " inter alia seeking again " to obviate the need for depositions." On July 21, 2014, the Court denied this motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37-1 et seq. The Court added that, to the extent this motion might seek summary judgment, Plaintiff should heed the Court's January 31, 2014 order denying Plaintiff's previous motion for summary judgment without prejudice.
On July 24, 2014, the appearing Defendants filed a " Motion for an Order Dismissing the Action as a Sanction, or in the Alternative, an Order Compelling Plaintiff Khalil M. Chaoui to Appear and Testify and Produce Documents at Deposition and for Monetary Sanctions, etc." (" Motion for Sanctions").
Commencing in August, 2014, the Court received several documents purporting to be " orders to show cause" supposedly issued by the " Supreme Court of the Yamassee Tribe" (see ECF Docket Nos. 21, 23, 24). The Court rejected these documents for filing on the ground that the documents appeared to be signed by a person who was not a party to the case. On September 10, 2014, the Court received a purported " Judgment & Order" supposedly issued by the " Supreme Court of the Yamassee Tribe" (see ECF Docket No. 26). The Court rejected this document for filing on the ground that the document appeared to be signed by a person who was not a party to the case.
On September 24, 2014, the Court issued an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for deposition and to pay monetary sanctions, but otherwise denying Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. The Court has not received any indication whether Plaintiff complied with the September 24, 2014 Order, other than perhaps the negative implication contained in Plaintiff's " Motion to Discourage a Federal Court from Scatological Inclinations, " filed October 16, 2014. Therein, Plaintiff said he considered the Court's orders to be " inconsequential and impotent" and he " refuses to heed anything this federal court chooses to say. . . ." The October 16 motion also appeared to seek return of the filing fee. The Court denied this motion on October 24, 2014. On November 3, 2014, the Court received a " Request for Examination of Report filed by a Judicial Officer or Judicial Employee, " which the Court rejected for filing on November 4, 2014, on the ground that the requesting individual was not a party to the case.
On November 21, 2014, the appearing Defendants (" Defendants") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
On January 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document appearing to be another copy of the " Judgment & Order" supposedly issued by the " Supreme Court of the Yamassee Tribe" (see ECF Docket No. 26). The document purports to constitute a " Judgment" in the sum of thirty million dollars against Defendants (and perhaps also against the District Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to this case). Attached to this document is a yellow post-it note stating in full:
December 20th 2014
This is in Response to your Motion Filed and Dated as of November 21st 2014 - All I can say! Shame on you, Judges and Police Counsils [sic] you deserve what you are getting. The People are never wrong - Bunch of Crooks and Pathological Liars!
Apart from this note, Plaintiff has not filed any response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of offering proof of the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party's burden is met, the party opposing the motion is required to go beyond the pleadings and, by the party's own affidavits or by other evidence, designate " specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2006). The party opposing the motion must submit evidence sufficient to establish the elements that are essential to that party's case, and for which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 322.
The Court must " view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw reasonable inferences in favor of that party." Scheuring v. Traylor Bros., Inc., 476 F.3d 781, 784 (9th Cir. 2007). Where different ultimate inferences reasonably can be drawn, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc., 454 F.3d at 988. " At the summary judgment stage, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence." Porter v. California Dep't of Corrections, 419 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
A factual dispute is " genuine" only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A factual dispute is " material" only if it might ...