Rodriguez v. Brown CA5

California Court of Appeal Sep 8, 2014 No. F068327Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party cannot seek relief from adverse trial court judgments by suing the Governor, as the Governor lacks the constitutional authority to control or discipline the judiciary. Furthermore, the court affirmed the dismissal because the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action and was unintelligible.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff may sue the Governor to challenge the outcomes of prior superior court proceedings.
Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to impose liability on the Governor.
Whether the complaint was subject to demurrer for being uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A party dissatisfied with a trial court’s decisions cannot obtain relief from those decisions by suing the Governor.”

“The Governor is constitutionally prohibited from taking the actions plaintiff asserts that he should have taken to halt the judicial misconduct plaintiff[] discusses in his pleading.”

“Suing the Governor is not a means legally available for obtaining relief from adverse court judgments”

Filed 9/8/14 Rodriguez v. Brown CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

GILBERT RODRIGUEZ, F068327 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 12CECG02848) v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., as Governor, etc., OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kristi Culver Kapetan, Judge. Gilbert Rodriguez, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kristin G. Hogue, Assistant Attorney General, Joel A. Davis and Brent W. Reden, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Franson, J.

Plaintiff Gilbert Rodriguez filed a complaint against the Governor in Fresno County Superior Court, alleging in substance that the Governor wrongfully allowed a number of proceedings to be decided against him in superior court. The superior court sustained the Governor’s demurrer, explaining that (1) the court had no authority to review the results in cases previously decided by it; (2) the Governor never had any power to control the court’s disposition of those proceedings; and (3) the court could not impose liability on the Governor for not doing what he had no power to do. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Rodriguez filed his complaint against Governor Brown and the State of California on September 7, 2012. He states in his brief that he later voluntarily dismissed the state, leaving only the Governor as defendant. The complaint alleges causes of action for general negligence, intentional tort, and a conspiracy to “execute governance” by “means of fraud, malice and oppression.” The object of the alleged conspiracy was to “persecute” Rodriguez for “filing a legal complaint petitioning the California County of Fresno Government for a redress of grievances.” The complaint prays for damages of $10,462,909.65. In 25 pages of discussion, the complaint appears to claim that a number of court cases went against Rodriguez because of general misconduct on the part of a miscellaneous group of government officials, government employees, attorneys, and litigants. Twenty-eight individuals are mentioned, including judges, members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, employees of the Fresno County District Attorney’s office, police officers, attorneys, and others. Here is a sample of the language in which these arguments are made:

Rodriguez v. Brown CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief