Can Judrisdiction be changed based on residency

[blindI2justice]

Wisconsin / Michigan (defendants' state)
My case is seemingly a substantive 42, 1983 case. It involves public corruption, misconduct, conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law; 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendment violations.....too long a story to share.

My case is against the officers and officials of a City in West Michigan. I intend on filing a civil 42, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 14141 case against these folks, individually and in their official capacities. It is my understanding the case has to be filed in the 6th Circuit. My COA appeal is pending in the MI Court of Appeals in Grand Rapids, MI.

Can anyone point me to information as to what, if anything, I can do to request the case be heard in Wisconsin? I understand it is possible but highly improbable to have a Federal Case heard in another Circuit based on my residency in WI and my financial status.

Thank you.

 

[Tex78704]

If your federal complaints are based upon issues raised in your pending appeal in a state court of appeals, you will have to wait until you exhaust ALL legal remedies PRIOR to going to federal court, which will require appeals to the state and U.S. supreme courts.

If you did not raise and preserve your constitutional complaints starting from the lowest court, the federal court will not consider any such complaints raised for the first time in federal court.

Federal abstention doctrines will come into play, as will various immunity privileges, as will be the extent to which you preserved constitutional complaints on appeal. If you are doing this pro se, the likelihood of a prompt dismissal of the case is certain. Not saying this is always right... just the way it is.

You may file suit in the court in the area you reside. If there are any issues with venue, defendant(s) can challenge that if they wish.

 

[blindI2justice]

Pending appeal is a criminal issue

Thank you for your prompt reply. My COA appeal involves my conviction for Criminal Contempt of Court for allegedly violating my X's 5th and 6th ex-parte RO's he was unlawfully granted based on false sworn statements in his numerous Affidavits and petitions; perjury as defined in MCL 600.2950a(24). His RO's stated I was not allowed to contact his employer, a govt. entity.

I have not argued a 42,1983 case per se in any court. In Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S. 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994), the court ruled "There is no requirement that a P exhaust state remedies prior to filing a Sec. 1983 lawsuit." According to my research, although X and his attorney were allegedly acting as 'private actors' arguing a 'private cause of action,' the actions of the officers and officials of their employer are sufficient to show complicity between these alleged 'private' actors and the officers and officials of the City; public actors.

I raised the issue of first amendment retaliation, denial of my presumption of innocence and violation of my 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights as well as my rights under Michigan's FOI Act and Michigan's penal code MCL 750.411h(c); a Michigan statute stating a person engaged in constitutionally protected conduct and/or conduct serving a just purpose cannot be charged with a violation of a restraining order under MCL 600.2950(a) in my appellate Brief.

My X works for the City I'm hoping to sue. His 'private' attorney is the City's PA. In 2008 X colluded with his neighbors and filed 2 false crime reports against me with his employer's police dept. I didn't commit any crimes, was never charged and the cases closed, yet the court repeatedly granted X RO's (five after I moved to Wisconsin, 330 miles from this City in MI) and twice refused my Motions to Rescind stating in essence, I was "just lucky" I hadn't been caught.

X's and his attorney's employer repeatedly provided X and his alleged private attorney with any and all communications between the City and me including, my FOIA requests, emails, my PHI protected under HIPAA and the fact I'd filed a Michigan Civil Rights Complaint against the City's police dept. None of this information was subpoenaed, nor to the best of my knowledge, was it FOIA'd. Regardless, when the City Manager provided X's attorney w/ my PHI without my permission, both the City Manager and X's attorney willfully violated the law.

In Loh-Seng Yo v Cibola General Hospital706 F.2d 306 (10th Cir. 1983) the court noted "the state must be involved not simply with some activity of the parties alleged to have inflicted injury upon a plaintiff, but also with the activity that caused the injury. See also Adickes V S.H. Kress[398 U.S. 144,90 S. Ct. 1598, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970); Blum v Yaretsky,457 U.S.991, 1004, 102 S. Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed. 2d 534 (1982);Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S. 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994); Monell v New York City Dept of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed. 2d 611 (1978) and West V Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 179, 109 S. Ct. 454, 102 L. ed. 2d 469 (1988).

I was convicted of CC of C on March 12, 2010. My 'crime;' I sent seven FOIA requests to X's and his attorney's employer in late 2009. I didn't get the records, the price was a bit steep; $40,500.00. Prior to the start of the hearing my attorney met with the Judge and X's attorney in the Judge's chambers. My attorney never shared anything about the "back-room" deal. All he did was write on his legal pad, "Just say yes." As such I plead guilty to CC of C.

Prior to sentencing me to jail, the trial court stated on record, "I believe Ms. Doe should have been charged with stalking and criminally prosecuted. I believe law enforcement has been very DELICATE with her because of the fact that she went through a divorce and apparently has some other issues." As I said, I didn't commit any crimes, was never charged and the cases closed; facts clearly established by the official police reports attached to my Verified Pleadings.

During this hearing the Judge also modified my consent JOD granting X close to 100% of our joint marital assets including the home; a home to which I was granted exclusive rights in the consent JOD more than two years prior to this hearing. MCR 2.612.

Sadly, your observation Pro Se litigants seldom prevail at the appellate level has already been proven; the MI COA denied my appeal regarding the material modifications to my consent JOD more than two years after entry to the sole benefit of X. It's my contention, based on the facts of the case, the trial court has been a willful participant in this 'conspiracy against my rights.' The court's numerous and material modifications to my JOD were retaliatory. As such, the modifications have rendered me indigent.

Hopefully you can read "the rest of the story" when my federal case prevails and gets published. Now this is called 'hope,' or then again, possibly insanity. LOL


Thanks again for your response.

 

[tranquility]

I vote insanity.

What a waste of time. If you can't state the core of the case in one or two sentences, you don't have a case.

 

[blindI2justice]

Let me guess, you are an attorney**************..

Quoting Al Franken, "Most Senators on the Judiciary Committee are lawyers, but I'm not. So at first I thought it was unusual that I was appointed to Judiciary. But I did some research, and it turns out that most Minnesotans aren't lawyers either. So I decided to use my spot on this Committee to ask the common sense questions that regular Minnesotans would ask and ensure that someone was looking out for how these issues affect consumers, small businesses, and individuals' civil rights. Gosh, a politician w/ a sense of humor!

Like Al, I am not a lawyer. As you so graciously emphasized, I lack the training and experience to summarize my case in two sentences or less. Oh, and I am also unable to cut back-room deals based on payoffs and/or ex-parte communications.

The 'Honorable' Judge in my case denied my M4R based on a court rule which was amended two years prior......and I'm nuts??? Apparently only Pro Se litigants are expected to know court rules and statutes. At least in Michigan.

Thanks for your opinion. In your free time you may want to Google 'civility.'

 

[tranquility]

In your free time you may want to Google 'civility.'

You wrote:

Hopefully you can read "the rest of the story" when my federal case prevails and gets published. Now this is called 'hope,' or then again, possibly insanity. LOL

I replied:
I vote insanity.

Because it seems you have no case. It seems you feel wronged, but can't really say why without making emotional arguments. You will lose. Do you have a single citation from any case or statute where you can civilly sue a court for not following court rules?

When people throw out so much rubbish (even if true) as a pro per, they are going to lose. If you have no real basis for your belief (as in a case which supports your theory) you might notice that you can be made to pay for the government's defense. It happens rarely and only if the case is without merit, but, you have not yet expressed anything which indicates a meritorious lawsuit.

You will be wasting your and the court's time (and my tax dollars) and, without the ability to quickly summarize the case, you will not be able to convince a jury. (In the incredible chance you get there.)

By the way, Heck v. Humphrey is not a shield for you, but a sword against.

My COA appeal involves my conviction for Criminal Contempt of Court

Before even thinking about a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit, you have to prove:

that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus

 

[blindI2justice]

Fully aware of need for reversal

Which is why I filed an appellate Brief on the conviction. In Heck, the court stated one does not have to exhaust state remedies prior to filing a 42, 1983, as well as confirming your point; the conviction has to be overturned before I can file a cause of action for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.

My 42, 1983 case does not involve the court. It involves the officers and officials of a City in Michigan; a city which just happens to employ my X. X's 'private' attorney just happens to be this City's PA. My argument is deprivation of rights under color of state law and color of law, conspiracy Agustin my rights and pattern and practice and deliberate indifference.

I understand 1983 merely provides remedies for deprivation of rights established elsewhere and provides a cause of action for violation of Federally protected rights; e.g. Freedom of Speech! Right to privacy, etc.

I'm not trying to file a 42, 1983 against the Judge...he has absolute immunity..I get it. However, the data I've been able to acquire is prima facie evidence of the misconduct in which the officers and officials of this City repeatedly, intentionally, willfully and maliciously engaged to deprive me of my rights, privileges and immunities protected and/or secured by the Constitutions of the US and Michigan. Based on the documents I was able to obtain via FOIA, it is clear several officers of the City, while engaging in their conduct, were acting in their official capacities knowing full-well their conduct was anything but lawful.

I think it's a waste of tax-payer dollars when a person is repeatedly required to attend frivolous, malicious and unnecessary court hearings. It's called the "Legal Abuse Syndrome." Compare the # of post-divorce hearings to the number of divorces in a year in MI courts; it's obscene! MI does not have the $$ to continue allowing family courts to engage in conduct that is anything but "honorable."