Exhibit,Appendix: ADAMS VS DAHL

On September 14, 2020 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Paul Adams, and A Dahl, Dahl, E Kendrick, F Hernandez, Hernandez, J. King, Kendrix, Townsend, for 23-CV Other PI/PD/WD - Civil Unlimited in the District Court of Kern County.

Preview
1 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
2 ALICIA A. BOWER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 CHRISTIAN M. GEORGELY
Deputy Attorney General
4 State Bar No. 322952
1300 I Street, Suite 125
5 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
6 Telephone: (916) 210-7317
Fax: (916) 324-5205
7 E-mail: Christian.Georgely@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants Dahl, Hernandez,
8 Kendrick, and King

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF KERN

11 METROPOLITAN DIVISION

13
PAUL ADAMS, Exempt from Filing Fees—
14 Gov. Code, § 6103
Plaintiff,
15 Case No. BCV-20-102155
v.
16 DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
17 DAHL, et al. , THEIR MOTION (1) TO DECLARE
PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT;
18 Defendants. (2) TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO
FURNISH SECURITY; AND (3) FOR
19 ENTRY OF A PREFILING ORDER;

20 DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN
SUPPORT
21

22 EXHIBITS 25-30 of 30

28
1
Defs.’ Req. Judicial Notice Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Decl. Pl. Vex. Lit. (Case No. BCV-20-102155)
EXHIBIT 25
16-56734, Paul Adams v. B. Roe, et al
US Circuit Court of Appeals - 09th Circuit
This case was retrieved on 06/28/2023

Header
Case Number: 16-56734
Date Filed: 11/21/2016
Date Full Case Retrieved: 06/28/2023
Status: Closed 10/05/2018
Misc: (550) 3550: Prisoner-Civil Rights; Appeal

Participants
Litigants Attorneys
PAUL ADAMS Paul Adams
Plaintiff - Appellant, Plaintiff - Appellant,
c/o Mr. Charles Harris Parole Agent, Division of Adult Parole
Operations Southern Region, Long Beach 4 2444 South Alameda
Street Los Angeles, CA 90058
c/o Mr. Charles Harris
Southern Region, Long Beach 4
Los Angeles, CA 90058
AttorneyLabel: [NTC Pro Se]
B. ROE, Custody Captain at I.S.P., individual capacity Neah Huynh, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Defendant - Appellee, Defendant - Appellee,
AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General 455 Golden
Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Neah.Huynh@doj.ca.gov
AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Neah.Huynh@doj.ca.gov
AttorneyLabel: [COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
K. DAVIS, Appeals Coordinator for inmate appeals, individual Neah Huynh, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
capacity Defendant - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellee, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General 455 Golden
Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Neah.Huynh@doj.ca.gov
AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Neah.Huynh@doj.ca.gov
AttorneyLabel: [COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
DAVID B. LONG, Prison Warden Superintendant, individual Neah Huynh, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
capacity Defendant - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellee, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General 455 Golden
Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Neah.Huynh@doj.ca.gov
AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Neah.Huynh@doj.ca.gov
AttorneyLabel: [COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
D. HOLBROOK, Facility Assistant Warden, Central Operations, Neah Huynh, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
individual capacity Defendant - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellee, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General 455 Golden
Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Neah.Huynh@doj.ca.gov
AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General
Page 2 of 6
16-56734, Paul Adams v. B. Roe, et al

Litigants Attorneys
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Neah.Huynh@doj.ca.gov
AttorneyLabel: [COR LD NTC Dep State Aty Gen]
WOOD, Correctional Officer at Ironwood State Prison
Defendant - Appellee,
NITA, Correctional Officer at Ironwood State Prison
Defendant - Appellee,
LT. ABRIL, Correctional Officer at Ironwood State Prison
Defendant - Appellee,
K SIMS, Correctional Counselor at California Rehab Center (CRC)
Defendant - Appellee,
C ABARCA, Correctional Official (Captain) at California Rehab
Center (CRC)
Defendant - Appellee,
APPEALS COORDINATOR, at California Rehab Center (CRC)
Defendant - Appellee,
DOES, 1-20
Defendant - Appellee,

Associated Cases

Case Relationship Lead Member Additional Information
Number Case Case
12-55328 Prior cases: Filed: 02/16/2012 Disposed: 10/10/2013 Disposition: Affirmed -
Memorandum
12-56214 Prior cases: Filed: 07/02/2012 Disposed: 07/09/2013 Disposition: COA Denied - Judge
Order
13-56670 Prior cases: Filed: 09/24/2013 Disposed: 12/19/2013 Disposition: Jurisdictional Defects -
Judge Order
13-72895 Prior cases: Filed: 08/19/2013 Disposed: 11/26/2013 Disposition: Denied - Judge Order
14-56930 Prior cases: Filed: 12/10/2014 Disposed: 07/29/2016 Disposition: FRAP 42b Dismissal -
Clerk Order
14-71311 Prior cases: Filed: 05/05/2014 Disposed: 07/07/2014 Disposition: Denied - Judge Order
14-72186 Prior cases: Filed: 07/17/2014 Disposed: 09/30/2014 Disposition: Second Petition Denied
- Judge Order
16-70409 Prior cases: Filed: 02/11/2016 Disposed: 05/20/2016 Disposition: Denied - Judge Order
16-73173 Prior cases: Filed: 09/27/2016 Disposed: 11/15/2016 Disposition: Denied - Judge Order

Additional Case

Additional Case Information
prisoner - state - civil rights
Appeal from: U.S. District Court for Central California, Riverside
District: 0973 Division: 5 CaseNumber: 5:14-cv-00607-SJO-PJW DateFiled: 03/27/2014
Court Reporter: Alberto V. Ortiz , Court Reporter Supervisor
Trial Judge: S. James Otero , Senior District Judge
Judgement Date: 11/02/2016
Judgement EOD: 11/03/2016
Date NOA Filed: 11/17/2016

Proceedings
Page 3 of 6
16-56734, Paul Adams v. B. Roe, et al

Date # Proceeding Text Details
11/21/2016
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE
APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is
set as follows: Transcript ordered by 12/19/2016.
Transcript due 03/17/2017. Appellant Paul
Adams opening brief due 04/26/2017. Appellees
C Abarca, Lt. Abril, Appeals Coordinator, K.
Davis, Does, D. Holbrook, David B. Long, Nita,
B. Roe, K Sims and Wood answering brief due
05/26/2017. Appellant's optional reply brief is
due 14 days after service of the answering brief.
[10205529] (DLM)
11/23/2016
Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP):
Referring to the district court for determination
whether in forma pauperis status should continue
for this appeal. [10208521] (CKP)
01/04/2017
CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP)
Prisoner fee authorization form sent to prisoner.
[10253348] (CKP)
01/17/2017
Received PLRA authorization response from
appellant Paul Adams. Dated 01/11/2017.
[10268778] (RR)
01/18/2017
CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP)
Prisoner completed authorization fee order.
[10269431] (CKP)
04/24/2017
Filed (ECF) Appellees K. Davis, D. Holbrook,
David B. Long and B. Roe Motion for
miscellaneous relief [Motion to Revoke Plaintiff-
Appellant Paul Adams's IFP Status Under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(g)]. Date of service:
04/24/2017. [10408547] [16-56734] (Sheet,
Leena)
04/25/2017
Filed original and 7 copies of Appellant Paul
Adams (Informal: Yes) opening brief of 11 pages
and 1 copy of voluminous unbound exhibits.
Served on 04/17/2017. [10412388] (KT)
05/16/2017
Filed (ECF) Appellees D. Holbrook, B. Roe,
David B. Long and K. Davis Motion for
miscellaneous relief [Motion to Stay Pending
Disposition of IFP Motion]. Date of service:
05/16/2017. [10436982] [16-56734] (Sheet,
Leena)
05/25/2017
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LAB): The court
has received appellees’ motion to stay briefing
(Docket Entry No. ), in light of appellees’ motion
to revoke appellant’s forma pauperis status. The
motion to stay appellate proceedings is granted.
Briefing is stayed pending resolution of the
motion to revoke appellant’s forma pauperis
status. The motion to revoke appellant’s forma
pauperis status will be addressed by separate
order. [10448480] (ME)
Page 4 of 6
16-56734, Paul Adams v. B. Roe, et al

Date # Proceeding Text Details
06/09/2017
Mail returned on 06/09/2017 addressed to Paul
Adams, re: Court order filed on 05/25/2017.
Returned envelope notes: paroled, return to
sender, unable to forward. Resending to:
appellee's counsel for forwarding. [10467688]--
[Edited: address updated. 06/15/2017 by SLM]
(LA)
06/15/2017
Filed (ECF) Appellees D. Holbrook, David B.
Long, K. Davis and B. Roe Correspondence:
Response to June 9, 2017 notice pursuant to
General Order 12.8.. Date of service: 06/15/2017
[10475141] [16-56734] (Sheet, Leena)
07/28/2017
Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI and MARSHA S.
BERZON) Appellees’ request for judicial notice
accompanying the motion to revoke appellant’s
forma pauperis status is granted. Appellees’
motion to revoke appellant’s forma pauperis
status (Docket Entry No. ) for this appeal is
referred to the panel assigned to decide the merits
of this appeal for whatever consideration the
panel deems appropriate. The opening brief has
been filed; the answering brief is due on August
28, 2017; and the optional reply brief is due
within 21 days after service of the answering
brief. [10524787] (WL)
08/21/2017
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Neah Huynh
for Appellees K. Davis, D. Holbrook, David B.
Long and B. Roe. Date of service: 08/21/2017.
[10551722] [16-56734] (Huynh, Neah)
08/21/2017
Attorney Leena M. Sheet in 16-56734 substituted
by Attorney Neah Huynh in 16-56734
[10552071] (RR)
08/21/2017
Filed (ECF) Appellees B. Roe, D. Holbrook,
David B. Long and K. Davis Motion to extend
time to file Answering brief until 10/12/2017.
Date of service: 08/21/2017. [10552632] [16-
56734] (Huynh, Neah)
08/22/2017
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: GS): Granting
Motion (ECF Filing) filed by Appellees D.
Holbrook, B. Roe, K. Davis and David B. Long;
The answering brief due 10/12/2017. The
optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of
the answering brief. [10554432] (GS)
10/09/2017
Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review.
Submitted by Appellees B. Roe, K. Davis, David
B. Long and D. Holbrook. Date of service:
10/09/2017. [10610285] [16-56734] (Huynh,
Neah)
10/09/2017
Submitted (ECF) supplemental excerpts of
record. Submitted by Appellees B. Roe, K. Davis,
David B. Long and D. Holbrook. Date of service:
10/09/2017. [10610286] [16-56734] (Huynh,
Neah)
10/09/2017
Filed (ECF) Appellees B. Roe, K. Davis, David
Page 5 of 6
16-56734, Paul Adams v. B. Roe, et al

Date # Proceeding Text Details
B. Long and D. Holbrook Motion to take judicial
notice of Supporting Answering Brief. Date of
service: 10/09/2017. [10610288] [16-56734]
(Huynh, Neah)
10/10/2017
Filed clerk order: The answering brief submitted
by B. Roe, et al. is filed. Within 7 days of the
filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 7 copies
of the brief in paper format, accompanied by
certification, attached to the end of each copy of
the brief, that the brief is identical to the version
submitted electronically. Cover color: red. The
paper copies shall be printed from the PDF
version of the brief created from the word
processing application, not from PACER or
Appellate CM/ECF. The Court has reviewed the
supplemental excerpts of record submitted by B.
Roe, et al. Within 7 days of this order, filer is
ordered to file 4 copies of the excerpts in paper
format, with a white cover. The paper copies must
be in the format described in 9th Circuit Rule 30-
1.6. [10611476] (KWG)
10/12/2017
Received 7 paper copies of Answering Brief filed
by B. Roe, et al. [10615686] (SD)
10/12/2017
Filed 4 paper copies of supplemental excerpts of
record in 2 volume(s) filed by Appellees B. Roe,
et al. [10615719] (KT)
11/30/2017
Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY, STEPHEN
S. TROTT and SUSAN P. GRABER) Appellant’s
in forma pauperis status is revoked for this appeal
because appellant has had three or more prior
actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and appellant has
not alleged imminent danger of serious physical
injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). These prior
actions or appeals are: 1. Adams v. Gottlieb, Case
No. 7-6820 (C.D. Cal.), 2. Adams v. Gottlieb,
Case No. 9-3027 (C.D. Cal.), 3. Adams v. Small,
Case No. 10-1211 (S.D. Cal.), 4. Adams v. Raske,
Case No. 11-243 (S.D. Cal.). Within 21 days after
the date of this order, appellant shall pay $505.00
to the district court as the docketing and filing
fees for this appeal and file proof of payment with
this court. Failure to pay the fees will result in the
automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for
failure to prosecute, regardless of further filings.
See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. No motions for
reconsideration, clarification, or modification of
the denial of appellant’s in forma pauperis status
shall be entertained. If the appeal is dismissed for
failure to comply with this order, the court will
not entertain any motion to reinstate the appeal
that is not accompanied by proof of payment of
the docketing and filing fees. Briefing is
suspended pending further order of this court.
[10672925] (Buccinio, Gabriela)
10/05/2018
Filed order (Deputy Clerk: FA) On November 30,
Page 6 of 6
16-56734, Paul Adams v. B. Roe, et al

Date # Proceeding Text Details
2017, this court ordered appellant, within 21 days,
to pay the filing fees for this appeal. The order
warned appellant that failure to comply would
result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by
the Clerk of the Court. To date, appellant has not
complied with the court’s order. Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute. See
9th Cir. R. 42-1. This order served on the district
court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act
as and for the mandate of this court. [11037498]
(WL)
08/14/2019
Filed Appellant Paul Adams motion to reopen
case. Deficiencies: None. Served on 08/08/2019.
[11398894] (JFF)

End of Document
EXHIBIT 26
Case: 16-56734, 01/04/2017, ID: 10253348, DktEntry: 3, Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAN 04 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

PAUL ADAMS, No. 16-56734

Plaintiff - Appellant,
D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00607-SJO-PJW
v. U.S. District Court for Central
California, Riverside
B. ROE, Custody Captain at I.S.P.,
individual capacity; et al., ORDER

Defendants - Appellees.

A review of the district court docket reflects that appellant was permitted to

proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, and that such permission has not

been revoked to date. Consequently, appellant's forma pauperis status continues in

this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2),

however, appellant must pay the full amount of the filing and docketing fees for

this appeal when funds are available in appellant's account. Appellant is not

responsible for payment when the funds in appellant's prison trust account total

less than $10, but payments must resume when additional deposits are made or

funds are otherwise available.
Case: 16-56734, 01/04/2017, ID: 10253348, DktEntry: 3, Page 2 of 3

Consequently, within 21 days after the filing date of this order, appellant

shall complete and file with this court the enclosed authorization form, which

directs the prison officials at appellant's institution to assess, collect, and forward

to the court the $505 filing and docketing fees for this appeal on a monthly basis

whenever funds exist in appellant's trust fund account. These fees will continue to

be collected regardless of the date or manner of disposition of this appeal. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) and (e)(2).

If appellant fails to comply with this order, the appeal may be dismissed by

the Clerk. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.

FOR THE COURT:

MOLLY C. DWYER
CLERK OF COURT

By: Cyntharee K. Powells
Deputy Clerk
Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7
Case: 16-56734, 01/04/2017, ID: 10253348, DktEntry: 3, Page 3 of 3

PRISONER AUTHORIZATION FORM

I, Paul Adams, am the Appellant in Paul Adams v. B. Roe, et al, docket

number 16-56734.

I understand that I am required by statute to pay the full amount of the $505

docketing and filing fees for this appeal, regardless of my forma pauperis status,

and regardless of the disposition of this appeal. I hereby authorize the prison

officials at this institution to assess, collect, and forward to the district court the

full amount of these fees, in monthly increments based on 20 percent of the

average of deposits to or balance in my prison trust account, subject to the

provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

I understand that I am not responsible for payment when the funds in my

trust account total less than $10, but that payments will resume when additional

deposits are made or funds are otherwise available.

NAME: Paul Adams
SIGNATURE:
DOCKET NO.: 16-56734
PRISONER I.D. NO.: F-92755
CSP - CALIFORNIA STATE
PRISON FACILITY:
PRISON (IRONWOOD)
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 2199
Blythe, CA 92226
DATE:
EXHIBIT 27
Case: 16-56734, 10/05/2018, ID: 11037498, DktEntry: 24, Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 5 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PAUL ADAMS, No. 16-56734

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00607-SJO-PJW
Central District of California,
v. Riverside

B. ROE, Custody Captain at I.S.P., ORDER
individual capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

On November 30, 2017, this court ordered appellant, within 21 days, to pay

the filing fees for this appeal. The order warned appellant that failure to comply

would result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk of the Court. To

date, appellant has not complied with the court’s order. Accordingly, this appeal is

dismissed for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.

This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the

order, act as and for the mandate of this court.

FOR THE COURT:

MOLLY C. DWYER
CLERK OF COURT

By: Francis Adams
Deputy Clerk
Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7
EXHIBIT 28
20-71414, Paul Adams, et al v. USDC, Fresno
US Circuit Court of Appeals - 09th Circuit
This case was retrieved on 06/28/2023

Header
Case Number: 20-71414
Date Filed: 05/19/2020
Date Full Case Retrieved: 06/28/2023
Status: Closed 06/25/2020
Misc: (0) 0: ; Appeal

Participants
Litigants Attorneys
In re: PAUL ADAMS

HENDRIX MORENO MONTECASTRO

Prisoner Number: State Prisoner: AS6243
PAUL ADAMS Paul Adams
Petitioner, Petitioner,
CCIT - CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
(TEHACHAPI) Unit 1 P.O. Box 107 Tehachapi, CA 93581-0107
CCIT - CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
(TEHACHAPI)
P.O. Box 107
Tehachapi, CA 93581-0107
AttorneyLabel: [NTC Pro Se]
HENDRIX MORENO MONTECASTRO Hendrix Moreno Montecastro
Petitioner, Petitioner,
Prisoner Number: State Prisoner: AS6243 CCIT - CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
(TEHACHAPI) Unit 1 P.O. Box 107 Tehachapi, CA 93581-0107
CCIT - CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
(TEHACHAPI)
P.O. Box 107
Tehachapi, CA 93581-0107
AttorneyLabel: [NTC Pro Se]
USDC, FRESNO
Respondent,
GALVIN NEWSOME
Real Party in Interest,
RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Real Party in Interest,

Associated Cases

Case Relationship Lead Member Additional Information
Number Case Case
12-55328 Prior cases: Filed: 02/16/2012 Disposed: 10/10/2013 Disposition: Affirmed -
Memorandum
Page 2 of 3
20-71414, Paul Adams, et al v. USDC, Fresno

Case Relationship Lead Member Additional Information
Number Case Case
12-56214 Prior cases: Filed: 07/02/2012 Disposed: 07/09/2013 Disposition: COA Denied - Judge
Order
13-56670 Prior cases: Filed: 09/24/2013 Disposed: 12/19/2013 Disposition: Jurisdictional Defects -
Judge Order
13-72895 Prior cases: Filed: 08/19/2013 Disposed: 11/26/2013 Disposition: Denied - Judge Order
14-56930 Prior cases: Filed: 12/10/2014 Disposed: 07/29/2016 Disposition: FRAP 42b Dismissal -
Clerk Order
14-71311 Prior cases: Filed: 05/05/2014 Disposed: 07/07/2014 Disposition: Denied - Judge Order
14-72186 Prior cases: Filed: 07/17/2014 Disposed: 09/30/2014 Disposition: Second Petition Denied
- Judge Order
16-56224 Prior cases: Filed: 08/26/2016 Disposed: 11/30/2017 Disposition: Affirmed -
Memorandum
16-56411 Prior cases: Filed: 09/27/2016 Disposed: 04/14/2017 Disposition: COA Denied - Judge
Order
16-56734 Prior cases: Filed: 11/21/2016 Disposed: 10/05/2018 Disposition: Rule 42-1 Dismissal -
Clerk Order
16-70409 Prior cases: Filed: 02/11/2016 Disposed: 05/20/2016 Disposition: Denied - Judge Order
16-73173 Prior cases: Filed: 09/27/2016 Disposed: 11/15/2016 Disposition: Denied - Judge Order
19-72658 Prior cases: Filed: 10/21/2019 Disposed: 11/21/2019 Disposition: Denied - Judge Order

Additional Case

Additional Case Information
original proceeding - non-paid mandamus/prohibition
Appeal from: U.S. District Court for Eastern California, Fresno
District: 0972 Division: 1 CaseNumber: 1:19-cv-01109-NONE-BAM
Trial Judge: Barbara McAuliffe , Magistrate Judge
District: 0972 Division: 1 CaseNumber: 1:19-cv-01065-NONE-BAM
Trial Judge: Barbara McAuliffe , Magistrate Judge

Proceedings

Date # Proceeding Text Details
05/19/2020
FILED PROSE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS. . [11695485][COURT UPDATE:
NEw Documents Attached, resent NDA,--[Edited
05/20/2020 by BY] (BY)
06/25/2020
Filed order (SUSAN P. GRABER, KIM
MCLANE WARDLAW and RYAN D.
NELSON): Petitioners have not demonstrated
that this case warrants the intervention of the
court by means of the extraordinary remedy of
mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557
F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the
petition is denied. No further filings will be
accepted in this closed case. DENIED.
[11733866] (AF)

End of Document
EXHIBIT 29
Case: 20-71414, 05/19/2020, ID: 11695485, DktEntry: 1-3, Page' R
1 ofE101
C E iVED
MOLLY C. DW'fEH, CLERK
PAUL ADAMS, CDCR#F.92755 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
FACILITY (E) DAVIS HALL, 21 LOW MAY 1 9 z::o
P.O. BOX 107; TEHACHAPI, CA 93581
PLAINTIFF (CLASS COUNSEL);
HENDRIX MORENO MONTECASTRO, CDCR#AS6243
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
ALEO
DOCKETED
§jej2o ~-
:re ~
FACILITY (E) DAVIS HALL, 3 LOW
P.O. BOX 107; TEHACHAPI, CA 93581,
(PLAINTIFF); cJ..ass iplaintif fs
1 THROUGH 120,000.
PLAINTIFFS IN PRO SE.
IN THE UNITED STATES NINTH CIRCUIT,COURT OF APPFALS

PAUL ADAMS, ]CASE NO.:
vs. ]DISTRICT COURT NO.:
]DISTRICT COURT NO. :
UNiTEn,stATES ·oISTRICT COURT ]PURSUANT 1D FED. RULE OF APP; PROC. FRAP 21 WRIT
EASTERN DISTRICT-'OF CALIFORNIA ]OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION, PURSUANT 1D THE ALL WRITS
]ACT. 28 U.S.C.A. §1651\a).
]EMERGENCY REVIEW REQUEST AND APPELIATE COURT INIER-
]VENTION.
USDC-E. ]DATE: MAY 14, 2020
J
]THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1291.
j
]REQUEST FOR THREE JUDGE REVIEW

DEMAND FOR A THREE JUDGE REVIEW
TO THK--ABOVE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
To The Three Panal Reviewing Judges, Plaintiff(s) Paul Adams; Hendrix Moreno Monte-
castro moves to the Court of Appeals with Extraordinary Writ of Mandate and Prohibit-
ion, regaring acts and omissions of the Federal District Court were Plaintiff(s)
of this action(s) have been suffering ongoing abuse of distriction, refusal to
rule on motions, and now Plaintiff(s) action resides in utter LIMBO as their Const-
itutional First Amendment right to grievance and rights established under the Federal
Statute 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 are being fundamentally violated and the Plaintiff(s)
now suffer irreparable harm. Appellate court Intervention is warranted, to restore
justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) provides remedy, In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct,
593 F. 2d 879, 881 (9th Cir. 1979).

WRIT OF MANDATE & PROHIBITION 1
Case: 20-71414, 05/19/2020, ID: 11695485, DktEntry: 1-3, Page 2 of 101

PLAINTIFF(S) ARE BENEFICIALLY INTERESTED
Plaintiff(s) of this writ of mandate/prohibition have standing and entitlement
to writ relief, the plaintiffs are "bereffcially interested" in the order or ruling
complained of; they, have "Special interests to be served to the particular right
sought to be preserved and protected over and above the interest held in common
with the public at large."•
Under the Provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff(s) brought a federal rights
lawsuit alledging an ongoing danger of inmate(s) becoming victims of homelessness
upon release from prison, creating extremely dangerous =::environments for parolees
and the public. They complained that they suffer injury and the threat of imminent
danger by being subjected to being release to instant homlessness and suffering
the violations of lack of shelter, food, clothing, heat or warmth, and being sub-
jected to commiting crimes to escape the fate, of homelessness. The remedy they
seek in the lawsuit is MINIMUM WAGE FOR WORK. That inmate(s) may earn their wages
to avoid homelessness and being placed in a dangerous invi:ronment •. U.S. 8th Amend.
The Plaintiff(s) HENDRIX MORENO MONTECASTRO; PAUL ADAMS; AND CLASS MEMBERS 1-120,000
HAVE FILED THEIR ACTION AS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. IN,:THE U.S. EASTERN DISTRICT
COURT. THEIR CASE WAS INITIALLY ASSIGNED TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND A DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE MAGISTRATE ACTED WITHOUT CONSENT, AS THE PLAINTIFF(S) FILED NO CONSENT TO MAGIST-
RTE JUDGE, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §636. AND THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DID SO ANYWAYS
BY: A) SEVERING THE LAWSUIT MAKING A FINAL DETERMINATIVE ORDER; B) REASSIGNING
THE TWO LAWSUITS WITHOUT A DISTRICT JUDGE ASSINGED TO THE ACTION BUT ONLY A MAGISTRATE
JUDGE IN BOTH CASES; C) DENIED PAUL ADAMS'S IFP PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1915(g);
PLAINTIFF(S) MADE OBJECTIONS, TO THE MAGISTRATE(S) ORDERS, AND THEIR OBJECTIONS
WERE NEVER RESPONDED TO; D) HENDRIX MORENO MONTECASTRO, FILED A WRIT OF MANDATE
AND PROHIBITION TO THIS COURT OF APPEALS, ASKING FOR -THE THREE JUDGE PANAL, ·WHERE
THIS COURT DETERMINED THAT ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED AND NO INTERNVENTION WAS ISSUED
BY THIS COURT OF APPEALS; E) PLAINTIFF(S) FILED MORE MOTIONS TO THE DISTRICT COURT,
BELIEVING THAT THIS COURT OF APPEALS MEANT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD FOLLOW
THE RULES; TO DATE NO RESPONSE WAS MADE, THIS CASE IS OVER TEN MONTHS AND THE COURT
REFUSES TO MAKE ORDERS AND RULE ON PLAINTIFF( S) MOTIONS. THE LAWSUIT IS Rt\ISID UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL CONSTITUTION EIGHTH AMENDMENT;AS TO
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, ONGOING IMMINENT DANGER, AND MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL
INJURY.
Because the Federal District Court for the Eastern District fails to rule on Plaint~-.
iff(s) motions their lawsuit is now stuck in limbo. This prevents and denies the
Plaintiff(s) the right to seek redress for grievances pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983,
and the United States Constitution First Amendment. The Plaintiff(s) suffer irreparable
harm and a substantial violation of their established rights to action in the courts.
If a Judge fails to Rule on a matter under circumstances that require such a ruling,
a petition for mandaums under 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) provides an adequate remedy. (See,
in re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 593 D.2d 879, 881 (9th Cir. 1979). In the
absence of correction and intervention, the Plaintiff's lawsuit would remain in
LIMBO. and they will suffer substantial injustice and a Miscarriage of Justice
as that in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 90 L.Ed. 1557, 66 S. Ct. 1239,
[3] which states in part:"The statute in terms makes no distinction between civil
and criminal cases" As that Plaintiff(s) are denied fair play and substantive justice.
In the absence of adequate performance by the United States District Court to allow
Plaintiff(s) lawsuit to proceed as all other similarly situated others are, instead
of placing Plaintiff(s) lawsuit in absolute LIMBO. Plaintiff(s) have an interest
in ruling and or order by this court to restore their civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
WRIT OF MANDATE & PROHIBITION
2
Case: 20-71414, 05/19/2020, ID: 11695485, DktEntry: 1-3, Page 3 of 101
PLAINTIFF(S) EXHAUSTED ALL AVAILABLE REMEDIES

2. Plaintiff(s) of this Writ of Mandate and Prohibition had exhausted all relief
remedies available, and it was to no avail. The relief that plaintiffs sought in
the lower court they seek here, by way of motion, objection and requests, and to date
the lower court had refused to respond going nearly on one year. The requested
relief is made on the same grounds that is urged in the petition. This writ is
an extraordinary relief and is a connondrum that Plaintiffs face because they court
appears to be acting in authority contrary to established rule, law and constitution,
and thereby is arbitrary, capricious:: and discriminatory, and thereby all remedies
available are exhuasted, because: A) PLAINTIFFS ASKED THAT THE MOTIONS AND.OBJECTIONS
BE RULED UPON, AFTER MONTHS PASSED AND NO RESPONSE, THEY MADE THE SAME MOTIONS
AND OBJECTIONS A SECOND TIME. AFTER NO RESPONSE, THE PLAINTIFF HENDRIX MORENO
MONTECASTRO MOVED TO THIS COURT TO INTERVENE, THIS COURT DECLARED INTERVENTION
WAS NOT NECESSARY, AFTER MONTHS OF WAITING NO RESPONSE WAS MADE, PLAINTIFF AGAIN
FILED THE SAME MOTIONS, AND OBJECTIONS, MONTHS PASSED AND NO RESPONSE, PLAINTIFF
DID SO A LAST TIME, AND MONTHS PASSED AND STILL NO RESPONSE. THEIR LAWSUIT IS IN
LIMBO. REMEDY EXISTS ONLY IN THIS COURT.
THIS WRIT IS TIMELY
This writ of mandate & prohibition is timely, as the Plaintiffs continued to give
the District Court every opportunity and the benefit of the doubt that maybe they
will respond at some time. Giving the Court enough time to answer the Plaintiffs
motions and objections, where now it becomes unreasonable, and it is clear that
the District Court is prejudiced against the Plaintiffs and that a clear conflict
of interest exists, where the Court is abusing its authority by placing their case
in limbo. A statute of limitations don't run here because the Plaintiffs had yet
to have an order, ruling or even a notice. The Plaintiffs exercised dilligence
in seeking relief in which never came. This writ is timely.
WRIT OF MANDATE & PROHIBITION
3
Case: 20-71414, 05/19/2020, ID: 11695485, DktEntry: 1-3, Page 4 of 101

3.
WRIT OF MANDATE RELIEF
Plaintiffs move to this Court with a Writ of Mandate, 28 U.S.C.A. §1651 for the
following relief:
A) THAT THIS COURT OF APPEALS ORDER THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT TO RECONSOLIDATE PLAINTIFFS·LAWSUIT AS A SINGLE CLASS OR JOINT
ACTION, PLACING PAUL ADAMS, AND HENDRIX MORENO MONTECASTRO AND CLASS MEMBERS 1,120,
000 IN ONE CIVIL ACTION ASSIGNED TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND NO MAGISTRATE;
CONSENT;
B) THAT THIS COURT OF APPEALS ORDER THE OFFENDING DISTRICT COURT TO, GRANT PAUL
M)AMS! IN FORMA PAUPERIS BECAUSE HE STATED A ONGOING DANGER WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION
TO 28 USC §1915(G). AS STATING AN IMMINENT DANGER; and

C) ORDER THE OFFENDING DISTRICT COURT TO ISSUE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT UPON THE
DEFENDANTS NAMED IN THE LAWSUIT: GAVIN NEWSOM, CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR; AND RALPH M.
DIAZ (SECRETARY OF CDCR) FORTHWITH PAST SUE SPONTE SCREENING BECAUSE OF 1HE OFFEN-
DING CDJ'Rr'S DELAYS IN THIS CIVIL ACTION LIMBO FOR ONE YEAR. SERVED BY AND THROUGH
THE UNITED STATES MARSHALL'S OFFICE.
WRIT OF PROHIBITION
Plaintiffs moves to this Court of Appeals for Probition to restrain the Offending
Court and the newly assigned judge from reoffending as the matters addressed herein,
as there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law that is available and when
the threatened judicial action is outside or in excess of the court's jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs seek prohibition to arrest the proceedings of the offending court
and its tribunals ••• or person exercising judicial functions, in violation and
excess of their judicial authority. Such as processing and ruling and acting judic-
ially correct in this case as all other similarly situated cases. To Stop abuse
of authority, and obstruction of Plaintiffs lawsuit herein unjustifiably.
WRIT OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION
4
Case: 20-71414, 05/19/2020, ID: 11695485, DktEntry: 1-3, Page 5 of 101
4.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

DEPRIVED OF A RIGHI':

Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Section 1983 provides a cause of action
against persons acting under color of state law who have violated rights gµaranteed
by the Constitution. Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995);
Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir. 1984). Section 1983 can be
used as a mechanism for enforcing the rights guaranteed by a particular federal
statute and Constitutional right. Title 42 U.S.C. §1983 Civil Action for Deprivation
of Rights: Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
the juridiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that
in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in
such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless
a declatory decree was violated or declatory relief was unavailable. For the purposes
of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of
Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(Amended October 19, 1996, Pub. L. 104-317, § 309(c), 110 stat. 3853.)
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a Lredress
of grievances.
Plaintiff(s) PAUL ADAMS AND HENDRIX MORENO MONTECASTRO AND CLASS MEMBER PLAINTIFFS
1 through 120,000 HAVE AN ESTABLISHED RIGHI' AS ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED DO
TO SEEK REDRESS FOR GRIEVANCES IN 42 U.S.C. § 1983, AND UNDER THE UNITED STATES
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT I. UNLESS ALL CIVIL ACTIONS FILED PURSUANT TO 42
U.S.C. § 1983 ARE PLACED IN LIMBO, DENIED PROCESS, RULINGS AND ORDERS AND NOTICES,
THAN PLAINTIFF(S) ARE BEING TREATED INDIFFERENTLY. AND PREJUDICE RESULTS 1HEREFROM.
PLAINTIFF(S) PAUL ADAMS, HENDRIX MORENO MONTECASTRO, AND CLASS MEMBERS 1 THROUGH!
120,000 DECLARE THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHI' TO ACCESS TO THE COURTS, RULINGS ON THEIR
MOTIONS, PROCESS OF THEIR 42 u.s~c. § 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, AS ALL OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED OTHERS DO.
WRIT OF MANDATE & PROHIBITION

Case Info

Judge

Clark, Thomas S. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 30, 2023

Case Filing Date

September 14, 2020

County

Parties

A DAHL Defendant
BONTA, ROBERT A Attorney for the Defendant
DAHL Defendant
E KENDRICK Defendant
F HERNANDEZ Defendant
HERNANDEZ Defendant
HERNANDEZ, CHRISTOPHER S Attorney for the Plaintiff
J. KING Defendant
KENDRIX Defendant
PAUL ADAMS Plaintiff
TOWNSEND Defendant
Christian George Attorneys for Defendants
Roy Crumity Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Olena Likhachova Attorneys for Defendants
Alicia Bower Attorneys for Defendants
Lilit Arabyan Attorneys for Defendants
Tyler Heath Attorneys for Defendants
Cassandra Shryock Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Exhibit,Appendix: ADAMS VS DAHL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties