Motion For Reconsideration

1
MaryJones
1805ElCerritoPl.#209
LosAngeles,Ca90068
4248329295
super_lioness@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARYJONES,
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
13
14
EDMUNDG.BROWN,JR.,ET.AL.,
15
Defendant,
16
17
18
19
20
CASE NO. 2:13-cv-8789-DMG-SH

HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE
U.S.DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NOTICE. THIS IS NOTICE TO
THE COURT AND TO THE
DEFENDANTS OF PLAINITFF
MARY JONES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
MAGISTRATE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE
FILED APRIL 7, 2014.
MOTION DATE: May 23, 2014
9:30 A.M.
LOCATION: CENTRAL DISTRICT
FEDERAL COURT HOUSE
FLOOR 2 ROOM 7
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff Mary Jones requests reconsideration of magistrate recommendation to dismiss
26
her case without amendment on the basis it is not warranted, the report is erroneous,
27
inaccurate, irrelevant in big part and creates a miscarriage of justice.
28
1
NOTICE. THIS IS NOTICE TO THE COURT AND TO THE DEFENDANTS OF PLAINITFF MARY JONES MOTION FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF
THE MAGISTRATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE FILED APRIL 7, 2014.
Plaintiff Mary Jones request re-consideration of the entire causes in her
complaint of the deprivations of her guaranteed federal civil rights in Article IV,
VI, 1st,4th,5th,6th 14th of U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. And for
the amendment made to the California Constitution which has deprived her of her
Federal Constitution Article IV 4 rights. She makes this motion under Federal
Rule 72.
This motion is made following the attempt with both counsels pursuant to L.R. 7-3 on
April 14, 2014. When Mary Jones called James Losee (415-703-5028) at about 9am
counsel for Defendant Caplane the lady who answered the phone stated he was on
10
vacation (she did not want to give her name). Mary Jones asked for Mr. Sullivan and she
11
went to get him. She said he could not talk now so she left a message he return her call.
12
Mr. Sullivan never returned the call. Mary Jones called Terry Barack on his cell phone
13
and his number listed on his filing papers (213-897-2119). He did not answer the cell and
14
no answering service picked up. The office phone had an answering machine where Mary
15
Jones left a message for him to please return her call. Mr. Barack did not return the phone
16
call.
17
Mr. Barak returned my call on April 15, 2014.
18
Mr. Sullivan never returned my call.
19
April 14, 2014
20
Respectfully submitted:
21
________________________
22
Mary Jones, Plaintiff, in pro se
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT PLAINITFF

MARY JONES MOTION FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF THE MAGISTRATE
2
1
2
3
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE FILED

APRIL 7, 2014
I.
INTRODUCTION
Mary Jones was employed by the Regents circulating on a major surgery with too little
help when she sustained injury hitting her head full body length from a fall to the concrete
floor and on sharp equipment on January 21, 2005. Because of pervasive and long term
continuing retaliation Regents refused to allow her to leave and seek medical help
although they wrote out an injury report that date. Even later after working ten hours and
finishing the case, Regents did not allow her to leave but made her start another surgery
10
for Dr. Churchill. Further on Monday, she was denied a doctor and denied her own doctor.
11
Later she was denied crucial normal medical care, tests, intravenous dexamethasone and
12
other normal emergency treatment for such etiology and symptoms. Mary Jones has
13
knowledge of this as she is the plaintiff as well she has been a RN working huge
14
emergency centers for years. UCLA is a Medicare licensed facility under EMTALA. For
15
over a month the Regents and their self-insured via the new WCAB SB889 which had
16
been signed and implementation by Defendant Schwarzenegger denied Plaintiff
17
emergency medical care. On March 7, 2005, Mary Jones entered Cedars Sinai Medical
18
Center and obtained a MRI of her neck and was later found to have a compressed spinal
19
cord at C-3and bulging herniations at C-4. No MRI was ever done of her head or her
20
back even though she had pain in her head and back between her shoulder blades from the
21
time of injury. At this time the Regents stopped all benefits and Plaintiff became
22
homeless, gave away her belonging in her large apartment in Beverly Hills, had no
23
medical care because it was industrial injury, no income, and quickly went into financial
24
disaster using all savings and ruining excellent credit. She stumbled into a lawyers office
25
that after some time got a treating doctor and benefits restored.
26
Prior to this injury Plaintiff was a whistleblower about the Regents unsafe care in surgery
27
in the basement. The whistleblowing started in 2003 in a monthly meeting before more
28
than a hundred operating room Registered Nurses where she voiced her concern about the
3
staff (and patients) who were not protected with shields during the shooting of radiation
sometime lasting over an hour using C scan. The director quickly shut her up. No one
cared. Several nurses had acquired breast cancer. There were gross unsafe acts regarding
counting of items used in the surgical wound, infection control, disposing of body parts,
hundreds of instruments trays being contaminated, equipment instrument malfunction and
ignoring surgical informed consent for surgery and anesthesia. The goal was to make a
profit as fast as they could which they did and at the expense of safety; these reports
(Hunter Report) were in circulation among staff.
Along this time due to loss of a staff the surgical instrument room went into chaos
10
resulting in gross contaminated instrument trays with hundreds of instruments. Plaintiff
11
submitted over hundreds incident reports and nothing was ever done. It was surreal. These
12
deprivations could not possibly have occurred but for the unconstitutional provisions for
13
the Regents. And, the DFEH and the health Department gave Regents a pass which
14
harmed Plaintiff. When Plaitiff filed in the Superior court the DFEH stated she had not
15
filed timely cutting off the beginning and most egregious adverse harm against her when
16
the USPS had provided a record of the DFEH signing for them and a report was written
17
by the DFEH initially but it was struck by the court. During this time Plaintiff had written
18
correspondence and Superior Court files sent to Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney
19
General Edmund Brown. Governor Schwarzenegger did have the director of the DFEH
20
replaced and the people there promised to set the record straight but it was too late for her
21
case. Only leaving the harm of her supervisor counseling her for attending jury duty one
22
day in the Superior court with documentation and order to not talk about anything prior to
23
the jury duty adverse harm. Months later the Plaintiff found out the family member of
24
Regent lawyer and loyal family to the Regents was the foreman. And leaving injury from
25
retaliation to the WCAB court which it said had exclusive control of the physical injury.
26
As a few months later, the California legislature quickly deleted the punitive damages
27
part of the California Whistleblower Act for the Regents as they had been stricken as a
28
result more fraud from the Regents power. The bottom line is not the fault of the court as
4
they were just upholding the California Constitution. But with this compliant there is no
more excuse as the cause is before this Federal court where the mandate is on to review
this cause of the unconstitutional placement in the regents depriving Plaintiff (and others)
if her constitutional rights. Mary Jones seeks this relief this for herself and all people as it
is right and just. She will not stop until someone has the braveness to uphold the United
States Constitution.
Under the WCAB with the Regents as the Defendant since January 2003, the Plaintiff has
received continuing harm of court denied trial until 2011 when finally the UCLA WCJ left
to be on the Board of the now current Regent lawyer in WCAB case. In 2012 -2014
10
Defendant Caplane kept ruling for Regents in their unlimited appeals to the higher WCAB
11
Board in San Fran over and over. For months the Regents lawyers harmed Plaintiff
12
wherein she filed motions for protection which no hearing was ever held. No hearing was
13
ever held for payment of arrear disability and penalties. The only appeal the Plaitiff
14
ever filed in the higher WCAB was for the arrears payment of disability which was the
15
attached order Defendant Caplane filed with their motion that the report talked about. In
16
2013, the Regents again filed for another postponement of trial after the higher WCAB
17
court had given them two more years with everything they wanted. Still that was not
18
enough because their goal is to postpone unlimited until the Plaintiff dies then the Regents
19
(read unconditional power house of wealth and power of the State of California) gets off
20
from having to pay and make a profit while all other business in California are made for
21
pay their share. This affects every citizen in the United States as their taxes are paying for
22
the Regents expenses of doing business while the Regents a Billionaire Corporation who
23
has been given freedom from legislation and taxes and the power of the Governor and
24
others to mix with rich Billionaires violating everyones right to a Republican government
25
Article IV and equal protection under the 14th amendment.
26
27
28
5
As a result of their unconstitutional status they had no worries about lawsuits as they got
a pass in the courts if they ever had to go. Many of the Judges were graduates from
Regents. All they were doing was upholding the law.
Mary Jones knows this was she worked there for years while whistleblowing and
watching her back as they tried to run her off. Mary Jones knows this as she worked for
years as a Chief Administrator of Nursing and Hospital Department especially in the area
of safe medical care and malpractice. Plaintiff received much harm from the Regents
because of her whistleblowing and denied of justice in the courts. The courts were just
holding the law. The Regents were God.
10
The current amended California Constitution giving the Regents unconstitutional power of
11
both the state benefits and benefits of a corporation in which it explicitly states in
12
words there is no legislative control (means the people have no control) and which
13
explicitly states automatic members of the State of California along with wealthy big
14
corporate wall street players are mixing the public elected officials and government with
15
private for profit corporations. This machine of the Regents is insidiously utilized by a
16
few people with power in California (oligarchy) to amass a fortune of wealth and
17
power.at the expense of the civil rights of every American. It is similar to the foreign
18
governments who have the worst human rights of abusing their citizens, child labor,
19
pesticides in food, denying rights and then turning around and selling their products to the
20
US although such conduct is not legal in the US but countries receive the money from the
21
good non the less. The California Constitution Article 9 explicitly states the legislature
22
has no control over the Regents, they own billions of dollars, there is no control for the
23
people, they receive all the benefits of no taxes, no scrutiny from the government, no
24
requirement for court fees, unlimited money to purse cases in courts, and the right to sue
25
and own any property they wish. These are not the standard for a state government and it
26
violates the Article IV4 guaranteeing a republican government. This unconstitutional
27
placement over the years created a huge monopoly amassing wealth, stock, and
28
unconstitutional power in the courts. Plaintiff requests an injunction and or declaration

6
against, this unconstitutional placement. It is the state of California acting in disguise to
the people in the Regent form a separate Corporation which because it has automatic
members of the Government and others is like conjoined twins with one a traditional state
government and the other is a for profit corporation but the latter also reaps the lenient
benefits of no legislative control, no taxes, no court fees, no reporting of racial hiring as
others, and other. But the state portion of this twin is not able to wheel and deal their
billions of dollars on the stock market, pay millions to lobbies, etc. It allows the Regents
more than an antitrust monopoly. It has been a violation and deprivation of Plaintiffs and
the people in Californias right to a Republican form of government. It is the right of the
10
people and all states to not compete with a state who is not at an equitable level, but is a
11
state who has a government level and corporate public level but also has the law saying it
12
is not subject to legislative control and has the power of California Governor, etc., and
13
that which it can take its money and know no controlwhich causes it to be a hybrid form
14
of dictator government. It is a state couple with a shadow side of the Regents with all the
15
power, no legislative control, no taxes, etc., with its only goal to make a surreal profit
16
which harmed Plaintiff and harms every person in the United States. It harms every person
17
in the world because the State of California holds itself out as a state in the Union when it
18
19
is but a insidious hybrid-oligarchical dictatorship.

In the WCAB, it soon became plain to Mary Jones that her lawyer could not do anything
20
with the Regents and the WCAB either as she asked for settlement in 2006 when it was
21
decided the Plaintiff was permanent and stable. Mary Jones took over her own case to
22
have a firsthand look at the system the injured people in California was going through.
23
There is no adversarial system, it is whoever is the most powerful wins; especially if it is
24
the self-insured Regents who contract with powerful Sedgwick-Fidelity Mary Jones
25
filed and filed for trial until finally two judges signed her order for trial. Then the Regents
26
hired another new law firm to re-do the case redone after exhibits and witnesses were
27
exchanged. Everything in the WCAB is unjust with a complete lack of law and procedure
28
and upholding the laws of California and the United States. And for sure is a local WCJ
7
makes a fair decision against the Regents there will be no justice or trial. These new
lawyers ignored the laws harming Plaintiff for deprivations of her rights and the WCAB
court did keep ordering a trial date but did not act on any motions filed. The higher
WCAB keeps giving unlimited appeals to the Regents (read Californias money making
power machine). Justice is futile in the WCAB and the Plaintiff is finished with them.
She asks for remedy for the harm she has already sustained under their administration and
law.
II.The Magistrates Report Was Erroneous, Non-Relevant In Parts, Was Not
Accurate, And Showed Biased Toward The Defendants.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The magistrate states in his own words he took the information for his understanding of
the case from Defendant Caplanes unsworn pleadings instead of from or with the
Plaintiff. the following factual summary is taken from the WCAB defendants motion
to dismiss(p5,ln19-23).
It was the courts duty (de novo) to read all the papers and make a just assessment of what
the Plaintiff had written not that it was confusing. If the court found it confusing most
surely it did not find every line of her pleadings confusing. The court failed to make an
18
assessment of the complaint and her many pages of oppositions.
19
Instead the court in its own words took the words from the Plaintiffs adversary. The law
20
says the court must be non-partial except in the case of motions of dismissal and it
21
mandates the court must look most favorably on the non-moving party. The magistrate did
22
the opposite.
23
Caplanes order(late 2013) was not filed by Plaintiff with her complaint and it was in
24
error to consider it and put it in a report according to Iqbal as cited by magistrate. This
25
was the only time the Plaintiff had filed to the higher WCAB court because the lower
26
WCAB court ignored her motion she had filed three times without hearings. If the local
27
WCAB Judge does not hold hearings and makes an order which is just the higher WCAB
28
will overturn them. So it can make an unjust order or do nothing. It did nothing. None the
8
less, the Plaintiff had the legal duty to move the case out and upward as there is futility.
The higher WCAB court did not make the Regents pay arrears disability. But, they ruled
in favor of Regents to allow the deprivations of Plaintiffs basic civil rights to be deprived
by the Regents over and over in . Appeals. The Regents are protected by their
placement.
6
7
Ashcroft v.Iqbal 129 S. Ct.1937(2009) says the court may not consider in this type of
documents in a motion to dismiss which are not filed by Plaintiff. The magistrate did
write about it which should disqualify his report and the motion.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
In the case Iqbal cited by the court it says the court may not consider any other papers
unless they were filed by the Plaintiff with her complaint. The magistrate used the higher
WCAB order of 2013 which Caplane attached to its motion as the cause in the
compliant. This order was never a cause as it occurred eight years after litigation was filed
in WCAB, either right before or after this filing. It was merely part of the high amount of
information which could never stand alone. The court was wrong to consider this attached
order. The order could be used for evidence of unlimited appeals denying appellate
18
review denying any doctrine such as Rocker-Felder. But the magistrate said he could
19
not make a determination about Rocker Felder as he could not understand enough
20
about Plaintiffs pleading. This order in 2013 from Caplane evidenced unlimited appeals
21
which since the Magistrate used it surely told him the Rocker-Felder or any abstention
22
doctrine is not applicable.
23
The report dismissed the Injunction part of Plaintiffs complaint listing remedies, but
24
Federal law prohibits a magistrate determining issues on Injunctions without permission
25
of all parties.
26
The Magistrate cited in his report a case that says especially those in pro se should be
27
given the opportunity to amend. (p5, ln9-15). The Magistrate does not head this but
28
9
recommends dismissal without amendment even one time. This is inconsistent even in his
own report.
The Magistrate has listed several things which were not even a part of the filed
documents in this case including Bivens, Supervisory Liability, naming the State and
WCAB as Defendants, having the 2013 higher WCAB denial of ordering the Regents to
pay arrears disability based on AME reports as a cause of Plaintiffs complaint, which the
Plaintiff will not address further as they are irrelevant to this case. The magistrate spent
pages on why the Plaintiff can not sue the state or agency and then about immunity for the
state when the Plaintiff did not plead this as well in her pleadings said why. It does not
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
appears from the report the Magistrate read this case de novo. These pages are irrelevant
to the issue.
And on the converse, the Plaintiff did file in her complaint and pleadings as 42 U.S. C.
1983 as the protection she was seeking remedy under with her civil right deprivations. In
this real instance, Magistrate Hillman did not even mention 42 U.S. C. 1983 anywhere in
his report of fourteen pages. This again is suggestive he did not read this case de novo and
Plaintiff ask his report not be upheld as a result.
18
Magistrate Hillman said the Plaintiff was dissatisfied over the litigation before the
19
WCAB. No, that was the words of Defendant Caplane. The Plaintiff was injured because
20
her fundamental rights to first amendment grievance, due process, speedy trial, Mickey
21
Mouse law and order with not one order being made other than several trial dates made
22
which were all cancelled by the higher WCAB for the Regents. And, there were other
23
deprivations of civil rights listed in the complaint. The futility, no judgment and no final
24
judgment In the lower WCAB, with unlimited appeals denying appellate review was in
25
the papers. Why did Magistrate Hillman not mention any of these but instead sought to
26
influence the reader by using words like dissatisfaction with litigation when that is not
27
the truth of this case and misleads. A reader for themselves can read the complaint and see
28
10
if it is understandable. It is public record. Why say is at least three different places the
compliant was rambling. It would seem for a judge saying it once was sufficient.
Magistrate Hillman said the Plaintiff rights were violated before Defendant Caplane in a
hearing. (p12 ln 7-8) This is untrue. The Plaintiff and Defendant Caplane have never seen
one another. Only the local WCAB judge makes the final rulings and orders. However, the
higher WCAB has the power to overrule any order and final judgment prevents the local
WCAB from carrying out justice which they do. In Plaintiffs case, the higher WCAB has
prevented trial and final judgment in the local WCAB for about three years where before
that the local WCAB had prevented judgment for about six years.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Magistrate Hillman said he could not understand the pleading enough to know if the
Rocker-Feldman was applicable. He never mentioned the doctrine of futility and the
WCAB denying appellate review with unlimited appeals to the higher WCAB. This would
have surely told him none of these type doctrines would never apply where the appellate
process is prohibited by law and practice as evidence by this order Magistrate Hillman
used which Defendant Caplane had filed. If Magistrate Hillman had read the file he would
have seen Plaintiffs case in the WCAB began January 2005 and a final judgment or any
18
judgment in the lower court has not been made except for repeated trial dates which the
19
higher WCAB overturn. He would have counted from 2005 to current and reported in this
20
report that denial of first amendment right to grievance has been denied. But Magistrate
21
Hillman was silent on these issues. He was either silent because he did not read it or he
22
was silent for other reason which in either case make his report erroneous and unrelated.
23
And Magistrate Hillman used three pages to talk about Supervisor Liability when this was
24
not a part of the Plaintiffs complaint and had not been brought up by anyone. As well, the
25
case he was citing was under Bivens not 1983. To get at the state one has to go thru an
26
individual connected to the state under 42 U.S. Code 1983. The Plaintiff chose
27
Defendant Brown and Schwarzenegger.
28
11
III.Defendant Caplane did not have jurisdiction and was not performing judicial
functions.
The magistrate judge wrote there are only two times a judge may not receive immunity
and Mary Jones agrees.
A.Defendant Caplane did not have jurisdiction on Plaintiff and subject matter.
Defendant Caplane starting in 2012 allowed herself to be inflamed by the documents in
the Regents appeal for reconsideration depriving Mary Jones of due process, search and
seizure, go outside the California statues, cause harm without evidence, re-open discovery
after the Plaintiff has worked long and hard to get a final judgment and trial for an injury
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
which occurred in Jan. 2005, re-do AMEs when they had already been hashed over for
years with that time being passed, give permission for documents (unknown and not
required to be served on her and have not to date)to be sent to doctors by the Regents, etc.
This is not justice in our justice system but is a dangerous dictatorship hidden away on the
side by the WCAB/Regents. As in the Magistrates Report to Dismiss shows how
pervasive the Regent power and the derogation of our U.S. Constitution has become as a
result of the Regents unconstitutional placement.
18
No judge has the jurisdiction to ignore the state and federal laws and make up their own.
19
Defendant did this because she allowed the Defendants filings of Obama to inflame her.
20
These legal filings about Obama had nothing to do with the industrial injury but were used
21
by the Regents with the sole intent to inflame Defendant Caplane as they could serve no
22
other purpose. Defendant Caplane as a councilperson had given money to the Obama
23
campaign.
24
Both the workers comp statue and the California Civil Procedure give definitive times
25
after mandatory settlement conferences for discovery to be closed. Both explicitly state
26
specific times within thirty days. Defendant Caplane ignored this and placed a retro order
27
giving permission for the past where the Regents had aggressively re-done their discovery
28
and surveillance after these dates had closed by statue in 2011. It is outside the laws for
12
Defendant Caplane to change explicit state law to feed her rage and intent to harm the
Plaintiff. As well, there were these same examples which happened with basic civil rights
such as due process, etc.
B. Defendant Caplane Was Not Engaging In Judicial Acts.
Defendant Caplane engaged in denying basic civil rights and well defined state statutes
against Plaintiff. These acts are not part of Judicial Acts.
IV.What Is Required in a Complaint Under A Motion To Dismiss
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A short and plain statement showing the pleader is entitled to relief. A short statement as
to why the court has original jurisdiction of the claim.
Please some factual allegations which are plausible to create a cause of action. If the facts
are believable and plausible then the court must make the assumption they are true (even
if they may not be). Facts which cause a reasonable inference the Defendant may be liable
for the misconduct alleged. Provides plausible facts above the speculative level. Detailed
and "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic
Corp. v.Twombly 550 US at 548.(2007). These factual allegations must give rise to an
entitlement of relief. If the compliant is absent of facts the action will not survive. The
Supreme Court reiterated that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim cannot be
granted merely because the factual allegations are not believed. A complaint must
provide the grounds for entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v.Iqbal 129 S. Ct.1937(2009). Twombly was an anti-trust cause. Iqbal was a
case filed under Bivens.
25
V.Why The Plaintiff Did Not Name The State And The State Agency WCAB In Her
Compliant But Instead Named Defendants Brown, Schwarznegger And Caplane.
26
As stated in Plaintiffs pleadings and her complaint. A person can not obtain financial
27
remedy from a state agency. That is why 42 U.S.C. 1983 was written by the Congress
28
under Article 3. Using a type of fiction the compliant names a person who is somehow
13
connected to this state agency. That person is the one named in the compliant. This person
can be sued for damages under 1983.
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 jurisdiction 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
redress42 U.S. Code 1983, Civil Action for Deprivation of rights.
10
To get at the state one has to go thru an individual connected to the state under 42 U.S.
11
Code 1983. This is why Defendants Brown and Schwarzenegger are named, not the
12
agency nor the state.
13
VI.The California Constitution Article 9, Has Unconstitutional Provisions For The
14
Regents To Evade Being Subject To Legislative Control, Providing The Governor
15
And Many Other Elected Officials To Be Automatic Members Of The Board, Etc.,
16
Mixing With Big For Profit Corporations To Form A Dictatorship Machine Pulling
17
In Great Wealth With An Unequitable Advantage In A Union For Which It Is
18
Prohibited By Article IV 4.
19
This placement has deprived Mary Jones of her right to a republican form of government
20
causing harm. The Regents are not required to pay taxes or court fees. They are not
21
required to report their racial hiring stats as others. Their hospitals get a waiver from the
22
stringent controls placed on others (such as expiration of sterile packing). They are given
23
curtsy review if at all, for their safety in medical care (Mary Jones worked there and has
24
firsthand knowledge and reviewed their Licensing records). This indicates how pervasive
25
it has become over the year and expected as the norm.
26
This placement gives the Regents an unconstitutional advantage over all other business
27
and people. It has created an oligarchy in California and the Regents are a dictatorship in
28
that it has no rules nor is accountable to the legislature (people).

14
The Regents have already from 2003-to present deprived the Plaintiff of her right to
grievance, speedy trial, due process, freedom of double jeopardy, right to protection under
Constitutional law, state and federal statutes, fair and just legal proceedings, freedom from
physical, mental and financial harm, right to a republican government, right to fair and
orderly law and order court proceedings, and freedom from dictatorship and cruel and
unusual punishment accruing from 2003-present time. All the harm in this complaint has
the etiology and root from this Regent placement even though each protection from harm
is guaranteed by the Constitution standing alone. Courts have upheld this placement and
Regents power because that is the law of California. Courts are mandated to uphold the
10
law until its Constitutionality is questioned before them as a cause. It is with this
11
compliant of Mary Jones she now brings this cause before this federal court asking
12
to find this law unconstitutional. The federal court is mandated to uphold the law and
13
decide this claim of unconstitutional Regents law (and WCAB law) which is brought
14
before this court.
15
When governments own Corporations it is Socialism/dictatorship and when private own
16
Corporation it is Capitalism. When an entity such as the Regents is given special
17
privileges of that not congruent with the Constitution Article IV 4 it provides the grounds
18
for a dictatorship amassing unknown wealth and power and power in the courts. It was
19
this which impacted Mary Jones who knew this was not right and whistle blew wherein
20
she received continuing adverse action from the powerful Regents to today. Mary Jones
21
remedies and relief is to this federal court.
22
uphold the Constitution and it is their duty and honor to do so. The courts historical have
23
been the place of last resort as identified in the Constitution.
It is the mandate of Federal Judges to
24
The Constitution provides for and guarantees every person a form of Republican
25
government to prevent dictatorship, monarchy, or any other type growing in a state.
26
Unfortunately, the Regents does just that and for thirteen years has harmed the Plaintiff.
27
VII. Legal Argument
28
15
A.Plaintiffs compliant stated deprivations of well-established guaranteed Constitutional
rights naming date, location and people to be relieved under 42 U.S.C1983. She pleads
the futility doctrine and is finished with the WCAB and now request remedy for her harm.
In her complaint she lists her injury while working for the Regents occurred on January
21, 2005 with the case going directly into litigation. She plead to date she has been denied
final judgment/trial or any judgment at the WCAB local level. This is 2014. The WCAB
denied final judgment for nine years. This is grounds to deny a motion to dismiss. (c-
p4,ln21-28; p5 ln1-22). It is plausible that the WCAB in nine years of no final judgment
and no judgment at the local level is depriving the Plaintiff of her right to grievances. And
10
under 42 U.S.C.1983 Plaintiff is entitled to damages for harm. The same goes for the
11
other deprivations under the WCAB.
12
For all these years Plaintiff has failed to get a hearing for the many motions she has filed
13
in the WCAB to trial and for her protection. The WCAB at Marina del Rey denied her the
14
right to court upstairs to the court without a court assistant. This court assistant was never
15
available and had not obligation in any way to the injured worker. The Plaintiff found a
16
way to go anyway. The Plaintiff was not allowed to take the court an ex parte although the
17
other parties did without both sides present.
18
Most of these have been in the last three years with increasing crescendo as the WCAB
19
was depriving her of her right to grievance and other civil rights plead. The local trial
20
court did not hold hearing and make orders. Nothing was done. And if the Plaintiffs case
21
if it was a just order like ordering trial the higher WCAB would delete it all with their
22
unlimited appeals. When an agency has a mechanism or administration where in it denies
23
final judgment and denies appellate review it must come to the federal courts and be heard
24
as a cause. It is a Constitutional question. In this case harm has been accruing for years.
25
Again, the root of this is the placement of the Regents in the state Constitution where it
26
violates the IV Amendment 4 right to a Republican form of government.
27
B. The provisions for state board members for the Regents in the California Constitution
28
deprive the civil rights of the Plaintiff. (c-p6,ln4-6). It gives the Regents the right to be
16
free of legislative control. It allows them to not pay taxes and court fees. It make
automatic members from the elected officials including the Governor and combine them
with others of the rich and powerful people. This is a match of private and public.
The Regents can sue. They are not required to report their racial hiring stats like others.
They get a wavier on the sides of public and private. This gives them a unjust and unfair
advantage over all in the United States. They have easily amassed Billions of dollars
where they over the years with this placement have gained great power in the courts with
unjust deference against others and often those harmed in medical institutions. The
Plaintiff has been one who has been deprived of her civil rights in continuing retaliation
10
over the years of 2003-current. All the harm in this compliant gets it etiology from this
11
placement of the Regents. They have unlimited money with their self-insured partnering
12
with Sedgwick and Fidelity. They have unlimited money and lawyers to pursue cases in
13
the court where by others are unable. The courts provide deference to them, because that
14
is the law. But now, that law is being brought before this Federal Court to demand
15
determination of its Constitutionality.
16
Article 9 of the California Constitution provides liberties for the Regents which are not
17
consistent with the Constitution and with Article IV Section IV. The United States shall
18
guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government. Article IV4.
19
There is no free press in California because of this Regents placement which down
20
through the years has taken out the Constitution and the freedom and privileges it
21
guarantees. The deprivation of basic civil rights such as denial of grievance, right to be
22
free to harm and have a court (WCAB) act on motions when the Regents lawyers are
23
harming the Plaintiff through ignoring of state statues and law and procedure for ordering
24
and just court proceedings. It is a circus in the WCAB with the most powerful side
25
winning. The lower judges in the WCAB are fine people trying to do right but this
26
Regents machine and the higher WCAB Board will not let them.
27
It is not a judges place to write or question the law but it is its mandate to uphold it.
28
17
As with the Judges in California it was not their place to question or write the laws but to
uphold them as in the California Constitution Article 9 for the Regents. Until..a
Plaintiff brings the cause before a judge.
It is the judges mandate to declare a law unconstitutional or order an injunction
when and if it is presented to the court in the form of cause of action.

TheRegentswiththeirUnconstitutionalplacementabovedeprives
Plaintiffofhercivilrights.Itcreatesaformofoligarchyinsteadofa
republicangovernment.Californiaisnowastatecontrolledbythe
handsofafewpeopleoftheRegents,WallStreetandtheStateinstead
6
7
8
9
ofbythePeople.(cp,ln38)ThepersonalnatureofthistoPlaintiffpersonally
10
isthegroundofthiscomplaint.Thishasbeenacontinuingdeprivationofcivil
11
rightstoPlaintiffpersonallyfrom2003tocurrent.Alltheharminthis
12
compliantisinsomewayadirectresultoftheRegentsplacement.Itisthis
13
RegentsplacementwhichhasunderstandablycausedCaliforniatochooseto
14
ignoretheConstitutionwhichmakeswayfordictatorshipsanddeleting
15
ofcivilrights.
16
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
17
Constitution, the Laws of the United StatesU.S. Constitution, Article III Section 2.
18
This action affects not only the Plaintiff but every person in the United States for many
19
ways but specifically here from a taxation standpoint as with the denial of paying
20
disability by the Regents and the WCAB, every American unjustly pays for the
21
Regents cost of doing business.
22
C. Prior To Dismissal Amendment Is Just.
23
In all Plaintiffs objections to the motion to dismiss she requested permission for leave to
24
amend with instructions of deficiencies. The court does not know what can be plead. This
25
is on-going harm since 2003 which covers lots of time. Plaintiff does not believe her
26
compliant is deficient according the standards identified in Ashcroft v.Iqbal 129 S.
27
Ct.1937(2009). At no time did any Defendant refute or deny any of Plaintiffs statements
28
in her complaint. It is easily checked if a case has received final judgment as well
18
Defendant Caplane filed in this court a copy of a denial order of Mary Jones appeal in the
higher WCAB. These facts are pleaded with dates, places and names. The California
Constitution is easily checked. The fact that WCAB administration is the opposite of the
mandate of the California Constitution is easily checked. These are legal and court
documents making it easy to be plausible. The civil rights are a mandate to Courts with
federal law 42 U.S. C. 1983 right to remedy. According to Iqbal this lays the ground and
remedy for the causes. The Plaintiff did fail to insert request for declaration, and maybe
that is not necessary when a court acts.
D. Naming Governor Brown in a case using 1983 was done in Perry v. Brown, 671
10
F. 3d 1052-2012 9th Circuit 381. Perry v. Brown, 3d 499(2011).Perry v. Brown 52 Cal. 4th
11
116-2011 58. This case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not one time was Governor
12
Brown ever struck from the 1983 use because he was not personally involved directly. It
13
has never said Defendant Brown has been involved in same sex marriage or denied the
14
same. He was but the Governor of California. The reason or this is the way it was written
15
was to sue the state but not directly as you could not sue the state. So instead a party
16
names a person who is connected to the state. This is what the Plaintiff did by naming
17
Defendant Brown and Defendant Schwarzeneggeras he was the actual person who
18
signed the 899 WCAB reform bill and implemented it.
19
If all these courts and the U.S. Supreme court did not throw it out, why can not the Judges
20
in Los Angeles Federal Court follow higher precedent and the Constitution. Is not well
21
established civil basic rights of Mary Jones not as valuable as the rights of unknown and
22
unestablished same sex marriage. Why is there this discrimination only in Los Angeles
23
against citizens.
24
As well, this case represents the right to a Republican form of government. As well, there
25
should be no difference when the names are exchanged because then justice changes to
26
dictatorship.
27
VII. Summary
28
19
Plaintiff Mary Jones asks this court not to accept the report and rule her complaint is
sufficient. Otherwise, she request permission to amend with notice of particular defects.
The Plaintiff prays the court will hear these controversy, provide right to remedy and
determine that if the WCAB law and the Regents placement in the California
Constitution are unconstitutional as well as deprived Plaintiff of basic civil rights.
Dated: April 14,
Respectfully submitted,
__________________
Mary Jones, Plaintiff in pro se
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20

Motion For Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Reconsideration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-8789-DMG-SH

Plaintiff Mary Jones requests reconsideration of magistrate recommendation to dismiss

inaccurate, irrelevant in big part and creates a miscarriage of justice.

Plaintiff Mary Jones request re-consideration of the entire causes in her

Mr. Barak returned my call on April 15, 2014.

Mr. Sullivan never returned my call.

April 14, 2014

Mary Jones, Plaintiff, in pro se

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT PLAINITFF

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE FILED

been signed and implementation by Defendant Schwarzenegger denied Plaintiff

hundreds of instruments trays being contaminated, equipment instrument malfunction and

(Hunter Report) were in circulation among staff.

resulting in gross contaminated instrument trays with hundreds of instruments. Plaintiff

Article IV and equal protection under the 14th amendment.

Regents. All they were doing was upholding the law.

holding the law. The Regents were God.

violates the Article IV4 guaranteeing a republican government. This unconstitutional

unconstitutional power in the courts. Plaintiff requests an injunction and or declaration

against, this unconstitutional placement. It is the state of California acting in disguise to

benefits of no legislative control, no taxes, no court fees, no reporting of racial hiring as

is but a insidious hybrid-oligarchical dictatorship.

There is no adversarial system, it is whoever is the most powerful wins; especially if it is

II.The Magistrates Report Was Erroneous, Non-Relevant In Parts, Was Not

Accurate, And Showed Biased Toward The Defendants.

assessment of the complaint and her many pages of oppositions.

doctrine is not applicable.

Federal law prohibits a magistrate determining issues on Injunctions without permission

Defendant Brown and Schwarzenegger.

and Mary Jones agrees.

Defendant Caplane starting in 2012 allowed herself to be inflamed by the documents in

such as due process, etc.

B. Defendant Caplane Was Not Engaging In Judicial Acts.

against Plaintiff. These acts are not part of Judicial Acts.

IV.What Is Required in a Complaint Under A Motion To Dismiss

can be sued for damages under 1983.

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

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress42 U.S. Code 1983, Civil Action for Deprivation of rights.

agency nor the state.

VI.The California Constitution Article 9, Has Unconstitutional Provisions For The

Regents To Evade Being Subject To Legislative Control, Providing The Governor

In Great Wealth With An Unequitable Advantage In A Union For Which It Is

it has become over the year and expected as the norm.

that it has no rules nor is accountable to the legislature (people).

before this court.

When governments own Corporations it is Socialism/dictatorship and when private own

Corporation it is Capitalism. When an entity such as the Regents is given special

remedies and relief is to this federal court.

been the place of last resort as identified in the Constitution.

It is the mandate of Federal Judges to

government to prevent dictatorship, monarchy, or any other type growing in a state.

VII. Legal Argument

A.Plaintiffs compliant stated deprivations of well-established guaranteed Constitutional

other deprivations under the WCAB.

other parties did without both sides present.

unlimited appeals. When an agency has a mechanism or administration where in it denies

violates the IV Amendment 4 right to a Republican form of government.