Lopez v. Creeger CA5

Filed 1/11/21 Lopez v. Creeger 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MARCOS-MILLAN: LOPEZ, F080501 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 19CV-03593) v.

MATTHEW L. CREEGER, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Brian L. McCabe, Judge. Marcos-Millan: Lopez, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, Roger S. Matzkind, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Janine L. Highiet-Ivicevic, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after an order sustained a demurrer to his complaint against a deputy district attorney who handled criminal charges brought against plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint stated he was a sovereign, nonresident, noncitizen, transient foreigner without legal domicile and declared his “person” to be a

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.

“stateless person” outside any and all jurisdiction of the federal government. Plaintiff alleged the deputy district attorney was attempting to assert jurisdiction over him and, thus, had the burden of proving jurisdiction. Plaintiff further alleged the deputy district attorney had failed to demonstrate the court had subject matter jurisdiction over him and, as a result, all causes brought against him should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The superior court sustained the demurrer because (1) the complaint did not state facts comprising a civil cause of action, (2) the civil department of the superior court did not have jurisdiction to issue orders affecting a pending criminal case, (3) the civil department could not be used to appeal a decision in a pending criminal case, and (4) any request for relief in the criminal matter must be pursued in that matter. Based on our independent review of plaintiff’s complaint and the record on appeal, we conclude plaintiff failed to state facts alleging a civil cause of action. His many jurisdictional arguments do not identify any cause of action that could be pursued in a civil lawsuit against a deputy district attorney. We therefore affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On August 19, 2019, plaintiff Marcos-Millan: Lopez filed a “JURISDICTIONAL COMPLAINT” in the Merced County Superior Court that named Matthew L. Creeger, a deputy district attorney, as the only defendant. The complaint stated plaintiff was, among other things, a sovereign, nonresident, noncitizen, transient foreigner without legal domicile and declared his “person” to be a “stateless person” outside any and all jurisdiction of the federal government. The complaint asserted that stateless persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of any courts because they are domiciled outside the general jurisdiction of the federal government. The complaint also alleged defendant attempted to assert jurisdiction over plaintiff and, as the party asserting jurisdiction, defendant had the burden of proving it existed.