United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
RE: DKT. NOS. 1, 2, 3, 8, 11
William H. Orrick United States District Judge.
plaintiff Jamil Malik Bey has filed a pleading titled Claim
for Damages & Injunctive Relief that I construe as a
complaint. (“Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 1]. It names
three state court judges, two state court clerks, the San
Francisco District Attorney, the San Francisco Sheriff,
twenty doe deputies of the Sheriff's Department, and two
private individuals as defendants. Id. Bey brings
multiple constitutional law claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, state law claims, and international law claims. He has
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”), which I grant. [Dkt. No. 3]. However,
even if a plaintiff qualifies for IFP status, I must still
examine the complaint to ensure that the complaint alleges
non-frivolous claims that can be pursued in this court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). If a
complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim, the statute
requires me to dismiss the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
For the reasons described below, Bey's complaint is
DISMISSED without leave to amend. His motion seeking
permission for electronic case filing is denied as moot.
[Dkt. No. 8].
7, 2019, Bey filed the underlying Complaint and a motion for
a temporary restraining order. [Dkt. No. 2]. On June 17,
2019, Bey filed a pleading entitled “Affidavit of Facts
of Jamil Malik Bey in Support of Preliminary Injunction,
” in which Bey appears to withdraw his motion for a
temporary restraining order because the underlying criminal
charges against him were dismissed without prejudice on June
12, 2019. (“Bey's Affidavit”) [Dkt. No. 11].
I construe this as Bey withdrawing his motion for a temporary
restraining order and instead seeking a preliminary
Complaint is rambling and difficult to understand, but his
claims appear to stem from a dispute regarding his property
located in a storage unit owned by Bey's associate,
Marimar Cornejo. Compl. ¶¶ 43, 56. On January 16,
2018, the storage unit company, Public Storage, filed a small
claims lawsuit against Cornejo in the San Francisco County
Superior Court, seeking to recover unpaid rent and fees or
exercise its lien and sell property within the unit to
satisfy the debt. Ex. D, Docket in Public Storage v.
Cornejo, Case No. CSM-18-857198 [Dkt. No. 1-2]. Employee
Amador Brenneman represented Public Storage and hired Eugene
Lee as his counsel. Compl. ¶ 43; Ex. D. The small claims
court did not recognize Bey as party to the action, and Bey
unsuccessfully tried to enter an appearance as Cornejo's
counsel. Compl. ¶ 51. Bey then attempted to file a
special appearance as party in interest, claiming that he had
substantial interest because he had property located in
Cornejo's unit. Id. ¶ 56. On March 5, 2018,
Judge Pro Tem Andrea McGary denied Bey's special
appearance on behalf of himself and on behalf of Cornejo, but
Bey claims that the judge eventually recognized his
appearances and “acknowledge[d] the Power of Attorney
agreement” between Cornejo and Bey. Id. ¶
57. The underlying docket does not show such a recognition
was ever made. See Ex. D. Bey's complaint
against all defendants arose from what allegedly took place
in that small claims case and the criminal charges that were
subsequently filed against Bey.
Small Claims Case, Where Bey is Non-Party
Initial Hearing Before Judge Kiesselbach
small claims case transferred to Judge Charlene Padovani
Kiesselbach because Cornjeo did not stipulate to a judge pro
tem adjudicating the lawsuit. See Ex. D. At a
hearing held on March 30, 2018, Bey again attempted to speak
as a non-party. Compl. ¶ 59. Bey alleges that Judge
Kiesselbach was biased against him because she recognized Bey
from another case, Cornejo v. Keypoint Credit Union,
and said that Bey was not allowed to be heard in the case
because he was not party to it. Id. Bey further
alleges that Deputy Nunes told Judge Kiesselbach that Bey had a
camera and intended to record the proceedings. Id.
Judge Kiesselbach then ordered Bey to erase the recording or
be held in contempt of court. Id. ¶ 63. Bey
claims that Deputy Nunes seized the recording device,
allegedly located in Cornejo's purse, without a warrant.
Id. Judge Kiesselbach ordered that Bey leave the
courtroom or be held in contempt of court. Id.
¶ 66. Bey further alleges that before he could leave,
Judge Kiesselbach ordered deputies to seize him a again
because “one deputy stated that he believes [Bey] may
have another recording device in [his] pocket.”
Bey claims that Cornejo moved to recuse Judge Kiesselbach and
that Kiesselbach accepted this challenge for recusal for
being prejudicial towards Cornejo and Bey. Compl.
¶¶ 72, 74. While the docket shows that the case was
reassigned to Judge Gail Dekreon, it does not reflect the
reasons for recusal. See Ex. D. On May 1, 2018, the
court denied Cornejo's request to transfer the case from
small claims to superior court. See id.
Final Judgment Entered in Small Claims Case
2, 2018, Judge Dekreon entered judgment against Cornejo,
ordering Cornejo to pay Public Storage the unpaid rent within
30 days or Public Storage would be authorized to sell the
property contained in the unit. See Ex. D. The
docket reveals that Bey, as non-party, attempted to file an
appeal on Cornejo's behalf. Id. The court
eventually accepted the appeal on Cornejo's consent.
Id. On July 18, 2018, the court affirmed the small
claims judgment and ordered Cornejo to pay Public Storage
unpaid rent within 45 days or Public Storage would be
authorized to sell the property contained in the unit.
See Ex. D; Ex. E, July 18, 2018 Judgment [Dkt. No.
Public Storage Preemptively Sold Property in Unit
final judgment, Public Storage sold Cornejo's property
located in her unit before the 45-day deadline set forth in
the July 18, 2018 order. Compl. ¶ 78; Ex. F, Order to
Show Cause [Dkt. No. 1-2]. Bey seems to argue that his
property was also improperly sold because Cornejo's
storage unit allegedly contained some of his property too.
Id. On August 31, 2018, Cornejo filed an order to
show cause why Public Storage should not be held in contempt
because it sold the property before 45 days had run.
See Ex. F.
Harold E. Kahn ordered Public Storage to appear in court on
September 5, 2018 and provide the court and Cornejo with any
and all contact information of people and entities to whom
the goods were sold. Compl. ¶ 79; Ex. F. Although
Brenneman and Lee did not initially bring the requested
information at the September 5, 2018 hearing, the matter
continued to the following day when the requested information
was provided. See Ex. D (docket entries on September
6, 2018 and September 7, 2018). The court ultimately did not
find Public Storage in contempt of court for preemptively
selling the property within the unit because it found that
the appellate order on July 18, 2018 was vague and ambiguous.
See Ex. D (docket entry on October 1, 2018). No
further filing have been made and it appears that the case
has been closed. See id.
Altercation Between Bey, Brenneman and Lee
rambling Complaint reflects Bey's frustration following
the September 5, 2018 hearing when Brenneman and Lee
requested more time to provide the requested information on
who bought Cornejo's property. After the hearing
adjourned, Lee claims that Bey confronted him and Brenneman
outside the courtroom. Ex. I, Lee's September 5, 2018
Letter to Judge Kahn [Dkt. No. 1-2]. Lee filed a letter with
Judge Kahn recounting the incident, which states that Bey
physically threatened both Lee and Brenneman and told them
that he would come after them and kill them. Ex. I. Lee
states that Brenneman and Lee attempted to walk away from Bey
but Bey continued to threaten and yell at them. Id.
Lee further states that both of them turned the block to seek
shelter and wait until Bey was gone before returning to their
respective offices. Id. Bey claims that Brenneman
and Lee falsely accused him of making threats against them.
Compl. ¶ 80.
argues that Lee and Brenneman conspired against him by filing
a police report in order to destroy Bey and Cornejo's
credibility. Compl. ¶ 42; see also Ex. G, San
Francisco Sheriff's Department Arrest by Private Person
Forms [Dkt. No. 1-2]. Bey further believes that Lee conspired
with judges to obtain a warrant. Compl. ¶ 82. Bey claims
that Lee approached Judge Kahn to issue a warrant and that
Judge Kahn purportedly refused. Id. Bey then claims
that Lee went to Judge Kiesselbach, who was previously
recused, to help him get a warrant for Bey's arrest.
Id. ¶ 82. Bey believes that Judge Kiesselbach,
Brenneman, and Lee were in conspiracy with the District
Attorney to bring these criminal threat charges against him.
Id. ¶ 83. During his arrest, it appears Bey
resisted giving officers a DNA sample as part of the booking
procedure. Id. ¶¶ 216-17. Bey alleges that
he was in custody for 29 hours. Id. ¶ 214.
Criminal Case Against Bey
Initial Hearing Before Judge Woods
September 7, 2018, San Francisco District Attorney George
Gascon filed a felony complaint against Bey for two counts of
criminal threats against Brenneman and Lee and one count of
refusal or failure to provide specimen. See Ex. J,
Felony Complaint in People of California v. Bey,
Case No. 18-012876 [Dkt. No. 1-2]. Judge Branden Woods
conducted the initial proceedings in Bey's criminal case
on September 12, 2018, and assigned Crystal Lamb, a public
defender, as Bey's counsel. Id. ¶¶ 31,