Below is a copy of a motion for reconsideration I filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 23, 2016 that is proof of cheating by the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals and the US District Court during the litigation of two lawsuits I filed against the City of San Jose.
UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Frederick
Bates 9th Cir Case
Nos. 16-16094
Appellant,
In Pro Per
Originating
Court Case No. 5:15-cv-05729 NC
vs.
City
of San Jose, et al
Appellees.
APPELLANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant (Bates) moves this court
to reconsider its decision to grant Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance of
the district court judgment. Bates argues that this court’s decision is
inconsistent with the precedent of this court that is relied upon in granting
Appellees’ motion, United States v.
Hooten, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating
standard). This court’s opinion in Hooten
states that a motion to affirm a final judgment should be filed only where “it
is manifest that the questions on which the decision of the cause depends are
so insubstantial as not to need further argument.” The opinion goes on to state
that motions to affirm should be confined to appeals obviously controlled by
precedent and cases in which the insubstantiality is manifest from the face of
appellant’s brief.
In his opening brief and
supplemental brief, Bates states the issues he is raising on appeal; 1) the district
court erred by denying Bates due process and equal protection claims; and 2)
Bates was not allowed to amend his complaint. As is required by the Hooten standard, this appeal is not
obviously controlled by precedent. The district court relied on cases cited by
Appellees, Carlson v. Cty. Of Los Angeles,
2015 WL 365994, at * 11 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015) (internal citations omitted) and
Lacy v. Cty. Of San Diego, 2012 WL
4111507, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) in granting Appellees’ motion to
dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6). These are district court cases that are
unpublished. They do not set precedent for courts in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Even if Carlson and Lacy were
Ninth Circuit precedent, they benefit Bates and not Appellees. As Bates argued
in his opening brief, the Carlson and
Lacy cases establish unequivocally
that the individual defendants (San Jose Mayor and Councilmembers) have a legal
duty to investigate Bates’ complaints against City Attorney Richard Doyle
because they are his direct supervisor and they control City policy. Additionally,
in both cases, the plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaints liberally.
It defies logic to say that the issues Bates raise are so insubstantial as not
to require further argument. Furthermore, this court in Hooten held that it does not ordinarily entertain a motion to
affirm where an extensive review of the record of the district court proceeding
is required. The court stated that it had denied a number of motions based on
such considerations. The order of this court clearly indicates that the court
completed an extensive review of the record because it cannot be argued
credibly that insubstantiality of Bates’ appeal is manifest from the face of
his opening brief.
Therefore, the standard for summary
affirmance as set by Hooten is not
met because Bates’ appeal is not obviously controlled by precedent, and the insubstantiality
is not manifest from the face of Bates’ brief. The order of this court granting
Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance is clearly erroneous and is an abuse
of discretion.
Bates rejects the order of this
court outright. The order is a farce just as the other dispositive rulings
related to Bates’ two lawsuits. Bates again reminds the court of its Mission
Statement:
“The mission of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals is to provide an impartial forum for the just and prompt
resolution of cases through the uniform and coherent application of the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.”
The court should also take notice of a
statement made by U.S. Representative Adam Schiff during the impeachment
proceeding of former U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous: “Litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will be
fair and impartial and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.”
How is it fair and impartial when this court affirms the district
court judgment granting Appellees motion to dismiss based on cases cited as
precedent that actually prove Bates’ claims and disprove Appellees’ claims? At
the very least, this has the appearance of impropriety. This does not even look
like justice. This looks like cheating; because it is cheating.
It is now, without question, that this court and the district
court have conspired to obstruct justice by protecting the defendants-appellees
in Bates’ two lawsuits against the City of San Jose by making rulings that favor
the defendants-appellees that are irrational and tainted by fraud. It is clear
that the decisions of this court and the district court are meant to bully
Bates into giving up his pursuit of justice. Bates will not be bullied or
intimidated by this court, the district court or any other court relative to
his two cases because the law, the facts and evidence is on his side. The substantial
fraud that has been committed by Appellees and the courts during the litigation
of Bates’ lawsuits has defiled the temple of justice. Bates promises he will
address this misconduct in a different forum.
CONCLUSION
Bates requests that the court rescinds its order granting
Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance and allow a full hearing on his appeal
or enter an order of summary reversal.
Dated:
December 23, 2016 __________________
Frederick
Bates
No comments:
Post a Comment