California civil rights issue put on "stay" but can I do something in the meantime?

[JGRAHAM2010]

You are not making arguments which have any kind of basis in law. You are taking the conclusion you want the court to reach and twisting the law in a desperate attempt to make it fit what you want. That is not how court works. A golf course is not a park nor a traditional public forum just because you WANT it to be. Your golf lessons are not "free speech" rather then conducting a business just because you want them to be. And the golf course, government owned or not, does not have to let you conduct your business on their property. Golf courses (and parks, for that matter) are allowed to have rules and those rules are allowed to restrict who is and is not allowed to teach classes on that property.

I repeat, you do NOT know more about the law then the judge who tossed out your case.

You should not be looking for a lawyer who will take your case on contingency since you have no hope for any sort of monetary award here. You should be looking for a lawyer that you can pay a large retainer to, and hourly fees after that is used up, to represent you in court and perhaps devise some intelligent and supportable arguments for you. You will NOT make money off of this. If you are very lucky, you MIGHT, after several years and many thousands in legal fees, be able to engage in your business at this golf course. But I expect it would take you at least 20 more years of giving lessons to make back what you pay the lawyer. And it's still a lot more likely that you'll lose even WITH professional help.

Judges are geniuses and they never make mistakes and are absolutely incorruptible. Same thing can be said about city and county government officials, and the management of Goldman Sachs would never violate my rights.

 

[tranquility]

I hate to be back, but I love a train wreck.

So, what you're saying is that with the exception of speaking to a viewpoint neutral rule (which I did not), the judge held as I said the law was? Was there any mention of commercial speech in his holding?

No fundamental right as the case you wanted to use was not "used" by the judge. (I said irrelevant. Did he discuss it.) Not a park as how you meant. (Still waiting for the cut and paste for the holding from your case saying it was.)

What an amazing coincidence. I didn't even need to read the briefs.

Federal judges rarely exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the federal causes of actions are dismissed.

Then, you appealed and refiled state law issues in state court and want to force the state courts to hear your case before the appeal is heard?

Um....do you have a cite for that?

How did you lose in federal court? Did you even get to present facts or was it all on the pleadings? If facts, summary judgment or holding?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Ignoring the federal issues "raised", I find that when you want something to happen, like forcing the state claims to proceed prior to the appeal, writing a stern letter to the presiding judge will work wonders. Demand your rights!

 

[BOR]

The point the judge was making is that he DECLINED to exercise jurisdiction over the state law issues. I don't think he could even do that properly. I think he let me down big-time. I think he wanted me to take the case back to the state court, drop my federal claims. . . I am not doing that.

I did some research on Pendent jurisdiction, according to this, he had proper authority to not entertain the state law claims once the federal claims were dismissed, see c 3.

United States Code: Title 28,1367. Supplemental jurisdiction | LII / Legal Information Institute

Opinion??

 

[tranquility]

I don't even think the OP disagrees that he can't force the federal judge to hear the state issues if the reasons for federal jurisdiction are gone. He can, but does not have to.

Generally, they don't.

The OP wants the Writ to force the state court to hear the state claims now, rather than after the stay.

 

[JGRAHAM2010]

I did some research on Pendent jurisdiction, according to this, he had proper authority to not entertain the state law claims once the federal claims were dismissed, see c 3.

United States Code: Title 28,1367. Supplemental jurisdiction | LII / Legal Information Institute

Opinion??

In my appeal I point out that my state law rights are linked to my federal rights. I point out that it is (I believe) improper to ignore my state law rights as he did. For example; we all have a federal right of "equal treatment" (i.e. 14th amendment), here the private-party partner of the City and County IS being let make use of the golf course properties to give golf lessons, but doing so under void agreements under California law (which agreements do not even put in writing this exclusionary policy as to golf instruction). The federal judge also says I did not claim any "fundamental right" so he could quickly rule that the reason for the exclusion of me as a golf instructor is viewpoint neutral and reasonable (i.e. is rational), given the City and County business partnership in question. However, I point out in my appeal that the federal judge should have considered California statutes that make it clear that you cannot exclude someone from a lawful trade in California -- did the district court judge have the right to ignore such facts and law in this California jurisdiction?

What I am saying is that the federal judge picked and chose what law he would look at, and he completely ignored all my state-given rights, to render a decision that is simply "wrong" in all respects. But, as I think I already mentioned, I believe this judge just wanted me out of his court, to make my claims in a state court, and to let the state courts handle this matter. Indeed, the resolution of my claims under state law should make me "whole." But given the disrespect of judges in California superior courts for Pro Se litigants I am not trusting the California courts to honor my rights either. (There truly is a very bad situation with judges and their disrespect for Pro Se litigants. I could go on and on about this even from this one case, but I digress. . .) Thus, I am hanging on to my federal claims. I wrote up a very nice appellate brief (an "informal brief," but written in the manner of the regular brief submitted to the 9th Circuit, even with an excerpt of the records for the judges/justices to conveniently view the parts of the record I cite in my brief). I do expect to prevail IF the "rule of law" is followed.

And that brings me back to the present state court issue:
Is it too late now to file a petition for writ of mandate in my state court action? I understand that "first amendment" issues (or California Constitution article 1 sec. 2a issues) get a "fast track" on a petition for writ of mandate?

Or, I just had a thought, could I ask for an injunction? (I know that there is pending litigation, but, after all, my very most fundamental rights are being put on hold. I must work! And golf instruction is what I do. This is an urgent matter.)

Anyway, is there anything I can do right now to at least get to teaching?

 

[JGRAHAM2010]

I don't even think the OP disagrees that he can't force the federal judge to hear the state issues if the reasons for federal jurisdiction are gone. He can, but does not have to.

Generally, they don't.

The OP wants the Writ to force the state court to hear the state claims now, rather than after the stay.

My "thinkish little brain" tells me the judge acted improperly, intentionally NOT defending the Constitution or my rights, completely and intentionally ignoring my state law given rights, to come up with a completely isolated federal decision where state law was inextricably intertwined with my federal rights.

Sure, if there were clear distinctions between my federal claims and my state law claims (as with the price gouging claims I raised under state law) then I can see that he could easily ignore my state law claims and the state law in general. However, where we are talking about my first amendment rights and Calif. Const. Art 1 sec. 2a rights, and my rights under California's anti-trust laws, and where the "fundamental" right to work in a "common occupation" (i.e. a non-regulated occupation) are at issue, I think that the federal judge must weigh those laws into the decision. . . even if federal law is only being considered.

See my last response to member "BOR"

For example, what if the law was so plainly written that in the California constitution it says "Golf instructors may freely give their golf lessons on any City or County golf course, even because they are parks, and are, thus, traditional public fora, and because the people have a right to work in such a common occupation." Could the federal judge ignore such state law where a City or County has stopped me from speaking at a golf course? Especially where the City and County here are ALREADY letting one group do that, and I am similarly situated, being that I too am a golf instructor. Indeed, doesn't the 14th Amendment say that a state government shall NOT "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal treatment of the law."


As another example, maybe a better one, look at the 9th Circuit case of "Carraras v. City of Anaheim, 768 F.2d. 1309, where it is pointed out that if California law would cover the issue that the federal courts properly do an analysis under California law first to determine the rights of a Plaintiff in the circumstances. (I would guess that if the California law would show itself to be less protective than federal law, then the federal court would shift back to use federal law to determine a Plaintiff's rights.) But do notice that it is NECESSARY for the federal court to actually DO the "analysis," and not to avoid the analysis to just throw a case back into the state courts. I could understand that the federal judge simply wanted to "abstain" from the state claims, and then "stay" the federal claims. (20 years ago on a labor dispute in which the FSLA was at issue, as well as Calif. Labor Code, a federal judge "abstained" from litigating on the state law claims, and "stayed" the FSLA claims, and the case was remanded to the state court where things were resolved and the federal action was dismissed for being moot.)

 

[Zigner]

Why do you think you are being excluded from a lawful trade? You're not.
Why do you think you are being prevented from working? You're not.

 

[tranquility]

No matter how many times or ways you state the error, you don't have the right to do what you seek in this case. The appellate court will tell you this as well.

Further, the simple error of ignorance regarding the situation now is because you don't have any overall understanding of how the court system works. (Ignorant does not equal unintelligent.) The case which kills you is:

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (1966) 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130 as codified in 28 U.S.C. 1367.

Specifically (c)(3):

(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if—
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

Since the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it has DECLINEd to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

This is not unusual, it is standard.

Info edit:
I agree with Zigner as well. The only thing you are being prevented from is your particular business plan. You can perform your occupation in your own home if you'd like, no one is preventing you.

 

[JGRAHAM2010]

Why do you think you are being excluded from a lawful trade? You're not.
Why do you think you are being prevented from working? You're not.

What you mean to say is that I can build my own golf facilities and teach golf there!

Yeah, right!

The "essential facilities" doctrine tells us that I should have access to the City and County golf courses, so I can fairly compete. (You should read about the essential facilities doctrine.)

But, perhaps you think that golf instruction is not a lawful trade? In fact, it is a "common occupation," because it is NOT regulated in any way by the state.

I most definitely AM being prevented from working as a golf instructor, and not just in the local area, but throughout the state. Indeed, there is a boycott against anyone like me from making use of golf facilities to teach their own students golf. Those that have control over the facilities hoard the access to the facilities. . . get my point?

Of course you don't.

 

[JGRAHAM2010]

No matter how many times or ways you state the error, you don't have the right to do what you seek in this case. The appellate court will tell you this as well.

Further, the simple error of ignorance regarding the situation now is because you don't have any overall understanding of how the court system works. (Ignorant does not equal unintelligent.) The case which kills you is:

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (1966) 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130 as codified in 28 U.S.C. 1367.

Specifically (c)(3):
Since the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it has DECLINEd to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

This is not unusual, it is standard.

Info edit:
I agree with Zigner as well. The only thing you are being prevented from is your particular business plan. You can perform your occupation in your own home if you'd like, no one is preventing you.

But I think I pointed out that state law comes into effect to even determine my federal law rights, and that state law has to be addressed -- the federal judge surgically removed the state law from his analysis to the point of changing my claims and creating his own "complaint" on my behalf.

Also, you are incorrect as is Zigner, I AM being prevented from participating in my chosen occupation -- you are not from California or you are 100% anti civil rights, and so why are you even on this forum? Nothing you have added has been the least bit helpful.

 

[Zigner]

What you mean to say is that I can build my own golf facilities and teach golf there!

Yeah, right!

The "essential facilities" doctrine tells us that I should have access to the City and County golf courses, so I can fairly compete. (You should read about the essential facilities doctrine.)

But, perhaps you think that golf instruction is not a lawful trade? In fact, it is a "common occupation," because it is NOT regulated in any way by the state.

I most definitely AM being prevented from working as a golf instructor, and not just in the local area, but throughout the state. Indeed, there is a boycott against anyone like me from making use of golf facilities to teach their own students golf. Those that have control over the facilities hoard the access to the facilities. . . get my point?

Of course you don't.

I absolutely get your point. However, you seem to be in the unique position of believing you have a valid point. You don't.

 

[tranquility]

Which has been pointed out to him by the courts for essentially the same reasons pointed out to him by us.

Amazing coincidence.

State law DOES NOT come into the analysis for your civil rights lawsuit. THAT federal question can easily be answered without looking to state law. There is no intertwining.

 

[You Are Guilty]

First, I'll solve the OP's problem. You need to distinguish that "discretionary" does not equal "mandatory".

Second, a bit of friendly advice. The last time I had a case against someone such as yourself, the final outcome was that that plaintiff now requires approval of the District Judge before he is permitted to file any papers in the future. You appear to be headed down the same path.

 

[davew128]

Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers, they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key...