• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per
Prisoner ID # 1824367
c/o Men\u2019s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

On November 23, 2009, a deputy clerk signed an Order denying Petitioner\u2019s Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate on behalf of the Court. This motion seeks reconsideration of that Order.

The grounds for this motion are:
1.The panel is violating Supreme Court precedent, which it is mandated
to follow, and state court precedent, which it is also mandated to follow;
-1-
RICHARD I. FINE,
Appellant and Petitioner,
vs.
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, et al,
Appellees and Respondents
Case No. 09-56073
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914 JFW (CW)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDER-
ATION OF DENIAL OF
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDATE

123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.There are not any grounds upon which the Emergency Petition can be
denied as the \u201cdefendants\u201d in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are
Magistrate Judge Woehrle and Judge Walter.

These judicial officers did not recuse themselves and unlawfully judged their own actions by denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is this denial upon which the Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate is based. (See

In Re Murchison, 399 U.S. 133, 136 (1955), wherein the Court recited the
general rule that \u201cno man can be a judge in his own case\u201d, adding that \u201cno man
is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome\u201d. Cited in
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Col, Inc., 566 U.S. ___ (2009) decided 6/8/09,
Slip Opinion page 10).
3.The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shows that both the LA

Superior Court [Judge Yaffe] and the LA County Sheriff [Leroy D. Baca] violated CCP \u00a7 1218 by holding Fine in \u201ccoercive confinement\u201d in the LA County Jail for greater than five days. The limit for contempt of court is five days under CCP \u00a7 1218 for \u201ccoercive confinement\u201d when Fine has a \u201cmoral reason\u201d such as following due process, as occurred in this case. (See In Re Farr, 64 CalApp.3d 605, 611-612 (1976) \u2013 coercive confinement becomes punitive after the five-day statutory limitation when it is shown that there is no substantial likelihood that the contempt order would serve its coercive purpose.)

-2-
123456789
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In this case, since a Federal writ of habeas corpus was filed on March 20, 2009 challenging Judge Yaffe\u2019s right to preside over both the Marina Strand case and contempt proceeding, and previously state court writs of habeas corpus had been filed, there obviously was no substantial likelihood that the contempt order would serve its coercive purpose, thus subjecting it to the statutory five-day limitation.

4.The Ninth Circuit is violatingMurchison, supra, by denying the

Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate. The Ninth Circuit is denying Fine due process as it is upholding the violation of \u201cjudging their own case\u201d by Magistrate Judge Woehrle and Judge Walter.

5.UnderM urchison, supra, andF arr, supra, the Ninth Circuit is mandated
to grant the writ.
6.These are separate violations from the present recusal action on appeal:
these violations occurred after commencement of the recusal action.
7.The action of the Court in denying the Emergency Petition indicates a

bias of the Ninth Circuit in this case. Such action further gives weight to the reasons for the House Judiciary Committee hearings on judicial recusals to enact laws to require recusals. It is clear from the actions of Magistrate Judge Woehrle and Judge Walter, and from the action of the Ninth Circuit panel, that

-3-
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...