-1-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro PerPrisoner ID # 1824367c/o Men’s Central Jail441 Bauchet StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHENINTHCIRCUIT

Appellant (“Fine”) has been, and continues to be, irreparably injured byhis unlawful incarceration, which began on March 4, 2009.He was deprived of personal liberty, which forcibly subjected him toundue and steadily mounting financial hardship and catastrophe as a direct resultof being prevented from earning a living.RICHARD I. FINE,Appellant and Petitioner,vs.U.S. DISTRICT COURT,Appellee and Respondent.SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELESCOUNTY(Real Party In Interest)Case No. 09-56073SUPPLEMENT TO EMERGENCYMOTION FOR IMMEDIATERELEASE FROM UNLAWFULINCARCERATION SHOWINGIRREPARABLE ANDIMMEDIATE INJURY ANDUNDUE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP,INCLUDING THE LOSS OF HISHOME, AND ONGOINGPHYSICAL PAIN ANDSUFFERINGFRAP Rules 23(b)(3) and 23(d)

-2-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

He has been prevented from addressing the legal issues in this casebeyond his personal memory of applicable law as a result of his having beendenied access to any useful legal resources while incarcerated.The expense of retaining counsel to adequately address these matters isprohibitive, and he cannot avail himself of any assistance as a pauper as thatwould entail full financial disclosure, the subject of which is also the thrust of the underlying contempt order.His severe financial hardship has led to the imminent loss of his home,which is now well into foreclosure.Fine’s incarceration has also resulted in his needlessly suffering physicalpain arising from medical conditions which were contracted as the result of incarceration at LA County Men’s Central Jail. Fine has developed a staphinfection, back pain, and swelling in his feet, ankles and legs, all in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, due to his unlawful incarceration and thedeliberate refusal and failure of the District Court to abide by 28 USC § 2243 inproceeding with the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.These delays have suspended the “privilege of the writ of habeas corpus”in violation of Article I, Section 9(2) of the U.S. Constitution.As this Court is aware from the record, the District Court unlawfullydelayed in ordering Respondent Sheriff to answer, and did not enter the writwhen the respondent Sheriff did not answer. The District Court also unlawfully“directed” the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe to answer without having jurisdiction over them, gave each a time period beyond the twenty (20) days(originally set for the Sheriff) allowed by 28 USC § 2243, and did not enter the

-3-12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

writ when they did not oppose or contest any of the grounds, facts or claims setforth in the Petition.Despite the requirement that the District Court have a hearing no laterthan twenty-five (25) days after the Petition is filed and summarily decide thecase, or earlier if the grounds or facts in the Petition are undisputed, as in thiscase, as set forth in 28 USC § 2243, the District Court waited for 103 days torender its decision (Dkt #30), at which time it denied the unopposed Petition.The District Court’s decision showed that neither it (Judge Walter) nor theMagistrate Judge (Judge Woehrle) had even read the full Petition. (SeeMagistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) Dkt #26, page 10,line 13, through page 11, line 1, which states the Petition had only five grounds.The Petition had, in fact, seven grounds. Page 13, line 27, through page 14, line4, of the Report states Fine was not charged under B&P Code § 6126, a criminalcount. The Order to Show Cause, at page 3, paragraph 16, attached to thePetition shows this charge. At page 23, line 1, through page 24, line 16, theReport again ignores the criminal contempt charge which was never dismissed.)The District Court left itself with only Counts One, Two and Five todecide.As to Count One, the Report did not cite to

Caperton, et al, v. A.T. MasseyCoal Co., et al

, 566 U.S. ___ (2009) decided June 8, 2009, which held that alarge contributor to a campaign committee of a judge by a litigant with aprospective case before him mandated the judge’s recusal from the case as adenial of due process.

Caperton

, supra, mandated the granting of the writ by theDistrict Court because Judge Yaffe had received an illegal payment from LACounty equal to 28% of his state salary (a substantial sum) and then made anorder in favor of LA County and against Fine without notice to Fine and without