Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Et Al (09-56073)

Digitally signed
Dr Z by Joseph H
Zernik
Joseph Zernik, PhD DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; email=jz12345@e
arthlink.net, c=US
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Location: La
Verne, California
Date: 2010.03.27
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs 07:30:45 -07'00'
10-03-27 Addendum #1 to Request for Opinion in re: PACER & CM/ECF –

Docket, Orders, Judgments of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in Appeal in
Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, et al (09-56073)
A. List of Attached Records:
1) Docket of the Appeal

2) 09-07-17-dkt-05-denial-certificate-of-appealability-judge-warner.pdf
3) 09-07-24-dkt-07-request-for-certificate-of-appealability-by-fine.pdf
4) 09-08-12-dkt-12-early-version-kleinfeld-granting-appealability-unsigned.pdf
5) 09-08-12-dkt-12-order-on-appealability-by-kleinfeld-unsigned.pdf
6) 09-08-12-dkt-13-order-denying-release-on-appeal-by-schroeder-kleinfeld-unsigned.pdf
7) 09-08-26-dkt-16-order-denying reconsideration-by-schroeder-kleinfeld-unsigned.pdf
8) 09-09-15-dkt-21-order-denying-release-on-appeal-unsigned.pdf
9) 09-09-23-dkt-23-order-denying-emergency-petition-for-habeas-corpus-unsigned-no-judge-named.pdf
10) 09-10-13-dkt-27-clerk-order-calendar-unsigned.pdf
13) 09-11-24-dkt-48-clerk-order-denying-petition-for-writ-of-mandater-unsigned.pdf
14) 09-12-04-dkt-50-clerk-order-denying-judicial-notice-unsigned.pdf
15) 09-12-08-dkt-52-letter-by-gotlieb.pdf
16) 09-12-09-dkt-54-order-denying-reconsideration-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw--unsigned.pdf
17) 09-12-11-dkt-57-order-denying-amicus-brief-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw--unsigned.pdf
18) 09-12-15-dkt-58-order-denying-reconsideration-of-clerk-denying-judicial-notice-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw-unsigned.pdf
19) 09-12-16-dkt-59-judgment-affirming-us-district-crt-judgment-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw--unsigned.pdf
20) 09-12-24-dkt-62-order-denying-judicial-notice-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw-unsigned.pdf
21) 10-02-10-dkt-66-order-denying-en-blanc-rehearing-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw-unsigned.pdf
22) 10-02-12-dkt-68-order-denying-disqualification-reinhardt-trott-wardlaw-unsigned.pdf
23) 10-02-18-dkt-69-mandate-by-clerk-unsigned.pdf
B. General Comments Regarding PACER and CM/ECF at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit:
Based on multiple phone conversations with senior technical staff of the PACER service center in Texas, Dr
Zernik concluded:
1) PACER and CM/ECF platforms were implemented in all US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals
by 2009.
2) Regardless of the common platform, certain variations, relatively minor, were permitted in the various US
District Courts.
3) The US Courts of Appeals assumed much wider latitude in implementation of the systems. The systems
as implemented at the US Courts of Appeals are distinct compared to any of the US District Courts
implementations. Moreover, they vary widely among the US Courts of Appeals.
4) An extreme example – the US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (NYC) implemented on January 1, 2010
modifications in its system, which were described by the PACER Service Center as “unilateral”. As a
result, it became impossible to access any records, or even the index pertaining to cases filed prior to
January 1, 2010, in any manner that could have be recognized by PACER users. A roundabout way was
Page 2/5 March 27, 2010
provided to such records, but one that could only be deciphered through step by step guidance by the
Service Center staff.
C. Case Numbering at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
1) Consecutive numbering of dockets is considered an essential safeguard for integrity of operations of the
Office of the Clerk of the Court. In fact, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that dockets be
numbered consecutively.
2) For reasons that were inexplicable, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, exempted itself from such rules.
The Richard Fine petition, filed in June 2009 was designated case number (09-71692). In contrast, the
appeal, filed in July 2009, was designated case number (09-56073).
D. Filing and Entry of Records
1) Filing of Records: the definition of Filing and Entry of records are critical relative to the conduct of the
business of the courts. Procedures related to Filing and Entry are at the foundation of any due process at
the court. Filing – is typically defined as the conveyance of a record by a party or a judge into possession
of the Clerk of the Court.
2) Entry of Record: Entry takes place at a later time relative to filing. It indicates that the Clerk of the Court,
pursuant to his/her duties, inspected the record on its face, and did not find any clear discrepancies.
Therefore, the record was incorporated into a particular court file, and with that – became part of the
public records of the court.
3) Entry of Judgment: Over centuries the English speaking courts developed particular, more elaborate, due
process procedures for the Entry of Judgment, given the overriding desire to eliminate any ambiguity
relative to both the execution of the Entry of Judgment, and its Date. Fraud related to appearance of Entry
of Judgment, with no valid Entry of Judgment, is alleged as central to conduct of both the US Court,
Central District of California, and even more so – the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles. It was alleged that due process procedures that were established over centuries were ambiguated
in the implementation of electronic case management and public access systems.
4) Authentication – Proof of Service or Certificate of Service –as prerequisite for Entry of

Records/Judgments: Honest, valid, and effectual Proof of Service or Certificate of Service, pursuant to
clearly delineated procedures that are defined in the Rules of Courts are required for the Entry of Records
or Judgments. A key claim regarding the implementation of PACER and CM/ECF at the US Courts and
US Courts of Appeals, is that the courts ambiguated the nature of authentication, and the practice of the
NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) or NDAs (Notices of Docket Activity) were never adequately
defined in Rules of Courts pursuant to the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC §2071-7. The failure to
adequately define the new procedures for Authentication was compounded by the denial of access to
the Authentication instruments. Such denial of access was alleged as abuse of Human Rights in and
of itself. There simply was no reasonable explanation for such denial of access that was consistent
with the furtherance of justice. The resulting ambiguity created a large opening for dishonest
conduct at the courts.
An extreme example were the NDAs of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Although Dr Zernik
attempted for almost a year and a half to gain access to such records, it was not until March 26, 2010 that
he saw such record for the very first time. It was the gaining of access to such record that prompted the
writing of Addendum 1 and Addendum 2.
Page 3/5 March 27, 2010
5) Table 1 is an example of docketing text in docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit:
08/12/2009 Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER and ANDREW J. KLEINFELD) Appellant's motions
13 and submissions to this court, received on July 20, 23, 29 and 30 and August 6, 2009, are
1 pg, 23.51 KB ordered filed. Appellant's request for a certificate of appealability is addressed by separate
order. Appellant's remaining motions and requests – including his request for immediate
release pending appeal – are hereby denied. [7024515] (DMM)
6) Table 2 is an example of docketing text in docket of the US District Court, Los Angeles:
Date Filed # Docket Text
03/25/2009 4 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error the Case has been
reassigned from Judge Dean D. Pregerson to Judge George H Wu for all further
proceedings. The case will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge CV 09-
01914 GW (CW). (rn) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
7) Regardless of the similarity in format, the differences are profound:
a. The US Court of Appeals left the columns undefined. Therefore, the definition of the date in the
left column was rendered vague and ambiguous. A naïve reader could interpret it as Date of
Filing, or alternatively as Date of Entry of the records.
b. Nowhere in the docketing texts of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, in fact, nowhere in the
dockets in their entirety would the word “Entered” be found. In the US District Courts, each
docketing text unit ends with “(Entered: <date>)”. Therefore, the US Court of Appeals left the
date of entry and even the existence of entry of the records vague and ambiguous. The failure to
ever use the word “Entered” or “Entry” appears far from chance occurrence, since various
contrived substitutes were used in various places in the dockets, which appeared as erroneous
legal usage: “Received”, “Filed”, or “Docketed”. The outcome is dockets that are vague and
ambiguous regarding the entry of any of the records on the docket. Moreover, detailed review of
the records in certain cases, such as the appeal at hand, Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles
County, et al (09-56073), would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the entire PACER
docket in such case was a sham docket, and none of the records in such docket were deemed
entered by the US District Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. It is further claimed that there is no
plausible explanation for construction of such sham dockets, unless to deceive and defraud.
c. The Service Center claimed that the initials at the end of the docketing text, e.g. “(rn)” in Table 2,
above, of the US District Courts, were associated with digital signatures. However, PACER did
not allow any way to view any tags of such signatures, expecting the public to take such initials as
signatures on sheer faith. However, the Service Center claimed that the initials at the end of the
docketing text of the US Courts of Appeals, e.g. “(DMM)” in Table 1, above, were NOT
associated with digital signatures. Therefore, if the information by the Service Center was to be
trusted, the US Courts of Appeals, which implemented their system later than the US District
Page 4/5 March 27, 2010
Court, created an appearance of signatures, based on usage of the same format, without the
signatures themselves being implemented.
E. Ambiguities in the Header Data of the Docket
1) One noted example of misleading format of the docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, is in the
header area fields that are labeled: Date Order/Judgment, Date Order/Judgment EOD. No field was
created for the data that is likely to be considered the most critical relative to appeals – Date of Entry of
Judgment. The validity of a Judgment, to take appeal from it, and the timeliness of the Notice of Appeal,
depend on the Entry, and Date of Entry of the Judgment, respectively. The failure to create a field for
the Date of Entry of Judgment created a docket for the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, which was
inherently vague and ambiguous. It is claimed that such ambiguity was employed for abuse in particular
cases, such as the case at hand. The evidence showed that the June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John
Walter, was never entered at the US District Court. However, the PACER docket of that court was
misleading, and Richard Fine gave notice of appeal anyway. The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, then
proceeded to create a full sham docket for a sham appeal from a sham June 29, 2009 Judgment.
2) The Date of Entry of the June 29, 2009 Judgment by Judge John Walter was never stated in the docket of
the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. It is alleged that such Judgment was never entered, since it was
served with an invalid NEF – missing the Electronic Court Stamp.
3) Of note, under “Current Cases” in the docket header, “Start” was listed as “07/10/2009”, but
no “End” was listed, albeit, the Appeal was disposed with the February 18, 2010 issuance of
mandate (Dkt #69). Such failure to list and end-date is consistent with the notion that the US
Court of Appeals itself never deemed its judgment and the mandate that were issued as
honest, valid, and effectual court records.
F. Verification by Circuit Judges of Orders and Judgments and Authentication by Clerks
8) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, routinely posted in the PACER dockets orders and judgments with
no signatures at all. In the case at hand, eighteen (18) orders and judgments were posted, none of them
with any signature at all.
9) In contrast, the record of 09-07-17 Dkt #05 Denial of Certificate of Appealability by Judge John Walter,
which originated at the US District Court, Los Angeles, included the hand signature of the judge on it.
10) In contrast, papers filed by Richard Fine were verified by Fine, and counter signed relative to their
authentication through a traditional Proof of Service (since Fine was not authorized to use CM/ECF), see
for example the July 24, 2009 Request for Certificate of Appealability (Dkt #7).
11) Papers filed by others, were likewise verified – e.g. December 8, 2009 Letter-by- Prof Gotlieb (Dkt #52)
12) The US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit implemented a system for certification of entry and authentication of
records, which was similar to the NEFs (Notices of Electronic Filings) at the US District Courts. The
equivalent record at the US Courts of Appeals is named NDA (Notice of Docket Activity) Even the name
of such key record was rendered vague and ambiguous. Just like the US District Courts, the US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit, eliminated any such records from its public PACER dockets. Therefore, the public
has no way to discern which records are honest, valid, and effectual records of the court, and which ones
were not. See Addendum 2 for further discussion of the NDA.
Page 5/5 March 27, 2010
G. Comments on the Docket of the Appeal in Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, et al
(09-56073)
1) All other orders and judgments in the appeal were posted in the docket unsigned, and there is no way to
discern if they were ever deemed honest, valid and effectual court orders by the Court itself.
2) No copies of the NDA’s could be obtained from the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, even after repeat
requests, which were filed regarding the Petition in June 2009. Therefore, the public was left unable to
discern the validity of any of the records in the appeal.
3) In the case of the record in Dkt #12, two versions of the record were downloaded, a few months apart. As
it turned out, the court altered the record during that time. However, no indication of the fact could be
found in the docket or the record itself.
4) Certain records of the docket were removed from public access, e.g., Dkt #32, #36, with no explanation at
all. Such conduct by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit must be deemed suspect, since most of the
records where access was denied were by Appellees, and some of them were subject to objections by
Richard Fine, who claimed that such filings included as evidence records that had never part of the US
District Court file from which the appeal was originated.
In Sum:
• It is alleged that the most plausible explanation for the multiple dishonest features of the docket
of the appeal in Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, et al (09-56073) was that such
docket was never deemed an honest, valid, and effectual docket of the US Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit, by the Court itself.
• The fact that the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, could perpetrate such travesty of justice, was
founded in the design and operation of the public access (PACER) and case management/
electronic court filing (CM/ECF) systems of the court – a major project by the Administrative
Office of the US Courts over more than a decade – which must be deemed fraud on the people.
• Whereas the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine reflected deeply entrenched corruption of
the courts of Los Angeles County, the conduct of the appeal reflected a US Court system that
was compromised to its highest levels.
• Such conduct of the US Courts must be deemed serious abuse of the Human Rights of the
people of the United States.
Dated: March 27, 2010

La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California Joseph H Zernik, PhD
By:_________ ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
Court Case Billing Court

Orders/Judgments Briefs XML TXT Logout Help
Home Search History Information
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the inth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 09-56073 Docketed: 07/10/2009
ature of Suit: 3530 Habeas Corpus Termed: 12/16/2009
Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, et al
Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Central California, Los Angeles
Fee Status: Paid
Case Type Information:

1) prisoner
2) state
3) 2254 habeas corpus
Originating Court Information:
District: 0973-2 : 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
Court Reporter: Blanca Aguilar, Official Court Reporter
Trial Judge: John F. Walter, U.S. District Judge
Date Filed: 03/20/2009
Date Order/Judgment: Date Order/Judgment EOD: Date OA Filed: Date Rec'd COA:
06/29/2009 06/29/2009 07/01/2009 07/01/2009
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
Related
09-71692 09-56073 07/10/2009
RICHARD I. FINE (-: 1824367) Richard I. Fine

Petitioner - Appellant, [NTC Pro Se]
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
Twin Towers
450 Bauchet St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
v.
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Aaron Mitchell Fontana, Esquire, Attorney

Respondent - Appellee, Direct: 818-545-1925
[COR LD NTC Retained]
ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/…/TransportRoom 1/11
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC
Suite 1200
100 West Broadway
Glendale, CA 91210-1219
JUDGE DAVID P. YAFEE, Hon. David P. Yaffe Kevin Michael McCormick, Attorney
Respondent - Appellee, Direct: 805-648-5111
[COR LD NTC Retained]
BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM
39 North California Street
P.O. Box 1178
Ventura, CA 93002
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY Kevin Michael McCormick, Attorney

OF LOS ANGELES Direct: 805-648-5111
Respondent - Appellee, [COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)
------------------------------
DANIEL HENRY GOTTLIEB Daniel Henry Gottlieb

Amicus Curiae - Pending, [NTC Pro Se]
3516 via Dolce
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
RICHARD I. FINE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY; JUDGE DAVID P. YAFEE, Hon. David P. Yaffe; SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Respondents - Appellees.
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
07/10/2009 1 Open 9th Circuit docket. No COA order in district court. Record on appeal
1 pg, 129.15 KB included: No. [6988692] (BG)
07/10/2009 2 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine's "emergency motion to immediately release aplt
25 pg, 1.33 MB Fine from incarcertaion pending appeal ... etc."; served on 07/09/2009.
[6988781] (HH)
07/20/2009 3 Received Appellant Richard I. Fine request for judicial notice in support of
20 pg, 759.44 KB emergency motion. Served on 07/15/2009 [6997710] (RL)
07/21/2009 4 Received certificate of record on appeal. RT filed in DC None (NT) [6999150]
1 pg, 55.87 KB (RL)
07/21/2009 5 Received copy of District Court order filed on 07/17/2009 denying certificate of
1 pg, 38.18 KB appealability. [6999155] (RL)
07/23/2009 6 Received Appellant Richard I. Fine request for certificate of appealability, request
12 pg, 602.65 KB for order immediately gratning writ of habeas corpus on all seven grounds based
upon no opposition and violation of 28 USC 2243 by district court, and request
for order immediately setting appellant free from Los Angeles County jail. Served
on 07/21/2009 [7003921] (RL)
07/24/2009 7 Received Appellant Richard I. Fine amendment to request for certificate of
3 pg, 77.17 KB appealability. Served on 07/22/2009 [7005104] (RL)
07/27/2009 8 Received Appellant Richard I. Fine notice regarding certificate of compliance.
4 pg, 96.33 KB [7005393} (RL)
07/30/2009 9 Received Appellant Richard I. Fine supplement to emergency motion for
8 pg, 396.1 KB immediate release from unlawful incarceration showing irreparable and immediate
injury and undue financial hardship, including the loss of his home, and ongoing
physical pain and suffering. Served on 07/28/2009 [7010421] (RL)
08/06/2009 10 Received Appellant Richard I. Fine authorization for Greg McPhee, Mardi
2 pg, 56.53 KB Mason and Fred Scotitle to speak to court representatives on appellant's behalf.
Served on 07/31/2009 [7019023] (RL)
08/12/2009 12 Filed order (ANDREW J. KLEINFELD) Appellant is granted a certificate of
3 pg, 231.76 KB appealability on the issue of whether the trial judge should have recused himself. A
review of this court’s docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for this
appeal remain due. Within 14 days of the filing date of this order, appellant shall
(1) pay to the district court the $455.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal
and file in this court proof of such payment or (2) file in this court a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a completed CJA Form 23. Failure
to pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall result in the
automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. The Clerk
shall serve a copy of CJA Form 23 on appellant. If appellant pays the fees, the
following briefing schedule shall apply: The opening brief is due September 9,
2009; the answering brief is due October 9, 2008; the optional reply brief is due
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
within 14 days after service of the answering brief. If appellant files a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, the briefing schedule will be set upon disposition of the
motion. Appellant’s remaining motions and requests will be addressed by
separate order. [7024494] (DMM)
08/12/2009 13 Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER and ANDREW J. KLEINFELD)
1 pg, 23.51 KB Appellant's motions and submissions to this court, received on July 20, 23, 29
and 30 and August 6, 2009, are ordered filed. Appellant's request for a certificate
of appealability is addressed by separate order. Appellant's remaining motions
and requests – including his request for immediate release pending appeal – are
hereby denied. [7024515] (DMM)
08/12/2009 14 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid:
1 pg, 61.83 KB USD 455.00 Date paid: 08/12/2009. [7027416] (RL)
08/19/2009 15 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine request for immediate review and reconsideration
16 pg, 760.34 KB of summary denial of emrgency motion to free appellant pending appeal without
surety and/or grant writ, as such was not answered by the sheriff and the grounds,
facts, and claims set forth therein were not opposed or contested by the LA
Superior Court and Judge Yaffe, in addition to all reasons set forth in the original
motion incorporated herein by refence, ad that the original motion was
unopposed, and on the new ground tht the certificate of appealability has been
granted and the fee has been paid. Served on 08/17/2009. [7033677] (RL)
08/26/2009 16 Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER and ANDREW J. KLEINFELD)
1 pg, 23.12 KB Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order denying his request
for immediate release pending appeal is denied. [7040857] (DMM)
08/31/2009 17 Filed original and 7 copies of Appellant Richard I. Fine (Informal: No) opening
52 pg, 2.09 MB brief of 41 pages. Served on 08/27/2009. [7047502] (LA)
08/31/2009 18 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine motion for immediate release for appellant based
5 pg, 204.58 KB upon opening brief showing that Supreme Court precedents mandate recusal of
Judge Yaffe. Served on 08/27/2009. [7050592] (RL)
09/08/2009 19 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine opposition to intervention of Joseph Zernik.
6 pg, 185.67 KB Served on 09/03/2009. [7056247] (RL)
09/09/2009 20 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine notice of no opposition to motion to set appellant
3 pg, 89.12 KB free pedning decision of Ninth Circuit. Served on 09/08/2009. [7056436] (RL)
09/15/2009 21 Filed order (A. WALLACE TASHIMA and N. RANDY SMITH) Appellant's
1 pg, 23.06 KB second motion for immediate release is denied. No further motions for immediate
release pending appeal shall be filed or entertained. No motions for
reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order shall be filed or
entertained. The opening brief has been filed; the answering brief is due October
9, 2009; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the
answering brief. [7061608] (JS)
09/17/2009 22 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine emergency motion to immediately grant writ of
6 pg, 183.74 KB habeas corpus based upon opening brief. Served on 09/16/2009. [7065558]
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
(RL)
09/23/2009 23 ENTRY UPDATED. Filed order MOATT: (SNR) Appellant’s “emergency
2 pg, 26.04 KB motion to immediately grant writ of habeas corpus based upon opening brief,”
filed September 17, 2009, is denied to the extent appellant seeks immediate
release from custody, because on September 15, 2009, the court denied
appellant’s second motion for immediate release and stated that no further
motions for immediate release pending appeal shall be filed or entertained. To the
extent appellant seeks expedited consideration of this appeal, that request is
granted. The answering brief is due October 9, 2009. The reply brief is due within
14 days after service of the answering brief. Because this appeal is being
expedited, the Clerk shall not grant any extension of time to file the briefs under
9th Cir. R. 31-2.2. The Clerk shall calendar this case during the week of
December 7-11, 2009, in Pasadena, California. [7071916]--[Edited 09/23/2009
by KD] [7071916] (KD)
10/06/2009 24 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine notice of no opposition to appellant's emergency
4 pg, 135.62 KB motion to immediately grant writ of habeas corpus based upon opening brief
served Sept. 16, 2009; demand for immediate granting of writ based upon no
opposition to motion. Served on 09/25/2009. [7086543] (RL)
10/09/2009 25 Submitted (ECF) Answering brief for review. Submitted by Appellees Judge
50 pg, 99.14 KB David P. Yafee and Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles. Date of
service: 10/07/2009. [7089801]--[COURT UPDATE: Replaced document with
searcable version.10/14/2009 by MA] (KMM)
10/09/2009 26 Submitted (ECF) Answering brief for review. Submitted by Appellee Sheriff of
16 pg, 75.11 KB Los Angeles County. Date of service: 10/09/2009. [7090739] (AMF)
10/09/2009 29 Filed Appellee Sheriff of Los Angeles County ("Sheriff Baca") supplemental
excerpts of record on appeal in 1 volume. [7093576] (LA)
10/13/2009 27 Filed clerk order: Answering Brief [26] filed by Sheriff of Los Angeles County.
1 pg, 28.33 KB Within 5 working days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 10 copies
of the brief in paper format, with a Red cover, accompanied by certification,
attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the
version submitted electronically. [7091929] (LA)
10/13/2009 28 Filed Appellees Judge David P. Yafee and Superior Court of California County
of Los Angeles supplemental excerpts of record on appeal in 1 volume.
[7092293] (LA)
10/14/2009 30 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner) Appellant’s September 17, 2009 and
1 pg, 23.07 KB October 6, 2009 motions seeking summary reversal of the district court’s denial
of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus are denied. Appellant’s reply brief is
due October 23, 2009. (MOATT) [7095250] (SC)
10/15/2009 31 Filed clerk order: Answering Brief [25] filed by Superior Court of California
1 pg, 27.78 KB County of Los Angeles and Judge David P. Yafee. Within 5 working days of the
filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 10 copies of the brief in paper format,
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
with a Red cover, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy
of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically.
[7095757] (LA)
10/16/2009 32 Received 10 paper copies of Answering brief [26] filed by Sheriff of Los Angeles
County in 09-56073. One copy to Case Files, the remainder to Records.
[7098185] (SD)
10/16/2009 33 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine emergency motion to strike appellees' answering
15 pg, 623.2 KB briefs or, in the alternative, strike inappropriate refferences to documents not in
"the record" contained in answering briefs; emrgency motion to grant release;
emergency motion to strike answering briefs of respondent Sheriff, LA Superior
Court and Judge David P. Yaffe; emergency motion to strike supplemental
excerpt of record on appeal. Served on 10/13/2009. [7098254] (RL)
10/16/2009 34 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine request for judicial notice in support of emergency
4 pg, 153.86 KB motions. Served on 10/13/2009. [7098284] (RL)
10/16/2009 35 Filed order MOATT: (SNR) Appellant’s motion to strike the answering briefs
1 pg, 24.17 KB and request for judicial notice are referred to the panel assigned to hear the merits
of this appeal. All further filings shall be referred to the merits panel. The reply
brief remains due October 23, 2009. [7098468] (DAF)
10/20/2009 36 Received 10 paper copies of Answering brief [25] filed by Superior Court of
California County of Los Angeles and Judge David P. Yafee in 09-56073. One
copy to Case Files, the remainder to Records. [7102631] (SD)
10/22/2009 37 Received original and 7 copies reply brief of Appellant Richard I. Fine (Informal:
63 pg, 3.32 MB No) 53 pages. Served on 10/21/2009. Major deficiencies: brief is oversized.
Notified appellant. [7110556] (LA)
11/03/2009 38 Notice of Oral Argument on DECEMBER Calendar. Please return
8 pg, 168.93 KB ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form to: PASADENA
Office. Attention: The Notice of Docket Activity may not list your case number.
Please open attached documents to view details about your case. [7117864]
(LN)
11/09/2009 40 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine motion to file replacement reply brief. Served on
4 pg, 144.58 KB 11/06/2009. (Panel) [7128912] (LA)
11/09/2009 41 Received Appellant Richard I. Fine's 28-4 notice of responding to multiple
3 pg, 98.37 KB answering briefs. (Panel) [7128922] (LA)
11/09/2009 42 Received original and 7 copies of Richard I. Fine (Informal: ) subsitute or
38 pg, 1.56 MB corrected brief of 32 pages. Major deficiency: motion to file replacement brief
pending. Served on 11/06/2009. (Panel) [7128927] (LA)
11/09/2009 43 Received original and 7 copies of Appellant Richard I. Fine supplemental brief
28 pg, 1.7 MB (Informal: No) 20 pages (entitled "Supplemental Appendix"). Served on 11/6/09.
Major deficiencies: motion required to file supplemental brief. Notified appellant.
(Panel) [7128932] (LA)
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
11/12/2009 39 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:SC): Appellant’s motion to strike Respondents’
2 pg, 30.01 KB answering brief is DENIED. Appellant’s request for judicial notice of California
Government Code §§ 68220 et. seq. is DENIED. Appellant’s oversized reply
brief, which was filed on October 22, 2009, is deemed filed. The panel
unanimously finds that the facts and legal arguments in this case are adequately
presented in the briefs and record and that the decisional process would not be
significantly aided by oral argument. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2), it is
therefore ordered that the case be submitted on the briefs, without oral argument
on December 10, 2009, in Pasadena, California. IT IS SO ORDERED.
[7127470] (SC)
11/12/2009 44 Filed original and 7 copies of Appellant Richard I. Fine (Informal: No) reply brief
62 pg, 3.17 MB of 53 pages. Served on 10/21/2009. (Panel) [7128941] (LA)
11/12/2009 45 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine emergency peten for writ of mandate to
55 pg, 2.46 MB immediately order trial court ot enter writ of habeas corpus in USDC case CV-
09--7943 or issue osc, served on 11/09/2009. PANEL[7128989] (CW)
11/20/2009 46 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine request for judicial notice of entire appellate
6 pg, 197.72 KB district's self-recusals in the "sturgeon" appeals. Served on 11/18/2009. (panel)
[7138870] (RL)
11/20/2009 47 Received letter dated 11/18/09 from Richar Fine pro se re: pre-decision on the
7 pg, 389.69 KB issues of "whether the trial judge [Judge Yaffe] should have recused himself'
against appellant Fine by the Ninth Circuit in the pending writ of habeas corpus
appeal in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County. (panel) [7138890] (RL)
11/24/2009 48 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:SC): Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for Writ of
1 pg, 26.52 KB Mandate to Immediately Order Trial Court to Enter Writ of Habeas Corpus or
Issue Order to Show Cause is DENIED. [7141094] (SC)
11/30/2009 49 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine motion for reconsideration of denial of emergency
5 pg, 183.93 KB petition for writ of mandate. Served on 11/27/2009. (panel) [7149090] (RL)
12/04/2009 50 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:SC): Appellant’s “Request for Judicial Notice of
1 pg, 23.26 KB Entire Appellate District’s Self- Recusals in the ‘Sturgeon’ Appeals” is DENIED.
[7151665] (SC)
12/04/2009 51 Received letter dated 12/10/09 from Richard Fine pro se re: L.A. County judges
2 pg, 136.69 KB to lose payments from county to avoid conflicts. (panel) [7152316] (RL)
12/08/2009 52 Filed Daniel Henry Gottlieb's motion to to become amicus curiae, served on
1 pg, 64.21 KB 12/07/2009. (Panel) [7155956] (LA)
12/08/2009 53 Received original and 0 copies of Amicus Curiae - Pending Daniel Henry Gottlieb
24 pg, 1.86 MB amicus brief in 18 pages. Major deficiencies: motion to become amicus pending,
untimely, brief is oversized. Served on 12/07/2009. (Panel) [7155999] (LA)
12/09/2009 54 Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, STEPHEN S. TROTT and KIM
1 pg, 22.21 KB MCLANE WARDLAW): Appellant’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of
Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate” is DENIED. [7156559] (AF)
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
12/09/2009 55 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine motion to reconsider clerk's denial of requests for
4 pg, 153.94 KB judicial notice of government code 68220-68222 and the justices' recusal of the
Second District of the California Court of Appeals in the case of Sturgeon v.
County of Los Angeles. (panel) Served on 12/08/2009. [7157977] (RL)
12/10/2009 56 SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS TO STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, STEPHEN
S. TROTT and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW [7159651] (BG)
1 pg, 21.5 KB MCLANE WARDLAW): Dr. Daniel Gottlieb’s motion for amicus curiae status
and submission of an amicus curiae brief is DENIED. [7160428] (AF)
1 pg, 25.02 KB MCLANE WARDLAW) Appellant’s “Motion to Reconsider Clerk’s Denial of
Requests for Judicial Notice” is DENIED. As to the request for judicial notice of
California Government Code §§ 68220 – 68222, however, we note that the
request is denied only because it is unnecessary to request judicial notice of a
statute. The panel will consult the parties’ cited legal authorities in its consideration
of this appeal. [7164720] (SC)
12/16/2009 59 FILED MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT,
8 pg, 393.25 KB STEPHEN S. TROTT and KIM MCLANE WARDLAW) AFFIRMED.
FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [7165909] (PH)
12/17/2009 60 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine's motion to take judicial notice of Monterey
6 pg, 259.53 KB County Judges ... . Served on 12/15/2009. [7171018] (GV)
12/21/2009 61 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine's petition for rehearing en banc only Number of
7 pg, 260.67 KB Pages 3. Served on 12/15/2009. Deficiency: None. Date circulated to the court:
12/21/2009 (ACTIVE JUDGES-ANY INTERESTED SENIOR JUDGES,
Panel: SR, SST and KMW) [7171163] (GV)
12/21/2009 63 Received Appellant Richard I. Fine's Combined emergency petition for panel
20 pg, 851.05 KB rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. Number of pages 15. Deficient:
[petition for en banc rehearing only previously filed]. Served on 12/19/2009.
(PANEL) [7176235] (GV)
1 pg, 22.69 KB MCLANE WARDLAW) Appellant’s “Request for Judicial Notice of Monterey
County Judges’ Public Statements” is DENIED. [7175290] (KKW)
01/12/2010 64 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine's petition for panel rehearing and petition for
20 pg, 861.44 KB rehearing en banc Number of Pages 13. Served on 12/19/2009. Deficiency:
None. Date circulated to the court: 01/12/2010 (PANEL-ACTIVE JUDGES-
ANY INTERESTED SENIOR JUDGES, Panel: SR, SST and KMW)
[7191813] [7191813] (GV)
02/03/2010 65 Filed Appellant Richard I. Fine's motion to disqualify judges Reinhard, Trott and
11 pg, 485.33 KB Wardlaw for not having disclosed violations of 28 USC 455(a) and to void the
memorandum of decision and other orders. Served on 02/01/2010. [7221784]
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
(GV)
1 pg, 27.25 KB MCLANE WARDLAW) The panel has voted to deny Appellant’s petition for
panel rehearing. Judge Reinhardt and Judge Wardlaw have voted to deny
Appellant’s petitions for rehearing en banc, and Judge Trott so recommends. The
full court has been advised of the suggestions for rehearing en banc and no active
judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.
App. P. 35. The petitions for rehearing en banc are denied. No further motions
shall be entertained in this appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. [7226626] (SC)
1 pg, 22.4 KB MCLANE WARDLAW) Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify Judges and to Void
the Memorandum Disposition and Other Orders is DENIED. [7231563] (SC)
02/18/2010 69 MANDATE ISSUED.(SR, SST and KMW) [7235709] (GV)
1 pg, 82.36 KB
03/02/2010 70 Received Aplt's petition for en banc hearing to overturn decisiion... [7250431]
33 pg, 1.44 MB (GV)
3/27/2010 09-56073 Docket
Clear All
Documents and Docket Summary

Documents Only
Include page numbers
Selected Pages: 0 Selected Size: 0 KB
View Selected
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
03/27/2010 02:09:01
PACER Login: dr2600 Client Code:
Description: Docket Report (filtered) Search Criteria: 09-56073
Billable Pages: 5 Cost: 0.40
Case: 09-56073 07/21/2009 Page: 1 of 1 DktEntry: 6999155
Case2:O9-cv-O1914-JFW-CW Document44 Filed07/17/2009 Page1of1
FILED
. ' lV E D VZ'U'
S'D'STBIW COURT
., !
t.
v';
t ERCLERK
(:S z' i
wy
!
u-
r(;pAjpyAgs j;
JUL212229
.
$.- .. .
.----
CB
Ey
NTBALDIWRICTOFCAL
DIF
COHT
PUNYI
A
.gy.,
.
--i
5I
lFFii-------------Ihç4
rrIykt.
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
CENTM LDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA ()9 .
/
* 6:7-
/-?
RICHARD1.FINE, CASENUMBER
CV09-1914-JFW(CW)
PETITIONER
SHERIFFLEROYD.BACA,eta1.,
ORDERRE:CERTIFICATEOF
APPEALABILITY
RKSONDENT.
On 7/1/09 ,PetitionerfiledaNoticeofAppealandarequestforaCertificate
ofAppealabilitypursuantto28U.S.C.j2253.TheCourthasreviewedthematter.
ITISHEREBYORDERED:
(:1TheCertitkateofAppealabilityisGRANTED.nespecitkissuets)satisfyj2253(c)(2)asfollows:
K neCertiticateofAppealabilityisDENIEDforthefollowingreasonts):
K Themhasbeennosubstantialshowingofthedenialofaconstitutionalright.
Q Theappealseekstotesttllevalidityofawnrmnttoremovetoanotherdistrictorplacefor
commi%entortrial.
Q Theappealseekstotestthevalidityofthedetentionpendingremovalproceedings.
/7 mazw
D te U tedStatesDistrictJudge
CV-79(û7N7) ORDERRE:CERTIFICATEOFAPPEALABILITY
œ ). (PF W VWZW
Case: 09-56073 07/24/2009 Page: 1 of 3 ID: 7005104 DktEntry: 7
RMou
euyccD
EWy'EnVOI-E
ERK
U.s.COIRTOFhjpous
1 RICHARD 1.FINE,lnProPer Jru2j2:gg
2 PrisonerID #1824367
c/oMen'sCentralJail e
3 441Bauchetstreet DLLIS'
ED nvE '
s'
mAL
4 LosAngeles,CA 90012
5
6 UNITED STATESCOURT OFAPPEALS
7
FOR THENINTH CIRCUIT
8
9
10
RICHARD 1.FINE, . CaseNo.09-56073
1l AppellantandPetitioner,
,2 AMENDMENTTOREQIJEST
vs. FORCERTIFICATEOF
13 APPEALABILITY
14
15 U.S.DI
ASPTRI CTCOURT,
PelleeanbRespondent.
y.R.
A.p.Rule22(b)
16
SHERIFFOFLOSANGELES
17 COUNTY
18 (Rea1PartyInlnterest)
19
20
21
22
23 AppellanthasjustreceivednoticethattheUSDistrictCourthasdeniedhis
24 RequestforCertificate ofAppealability. Such noticeappeared on PACER
25 today,July21,2009.AppellantherebyrequeststhattheNinthCircuitCourtof
26 AppealsgranttheCertificateofAppealabilityforal1thereasonssetforthinthe
zz RequestforCertiticateofAppealabilitytransmittedtotheNinthCircuitearlier
28 thisdate.
rf-
oatedtsssv/ dayoçnly,2::9 Respectfullysublaaitted,
BY: . - --
RICHARD 1.FINE,
lnProPer
PROOFOFSERVICE
STATEOFCALIFORNIA,
COUNTYOFLOSANGELES
lam Greg Mcphee. My businejsaddressis2450 N. LakeAvenue,PMB 227,

Altadena,CA91001.
OnJuly22,2009,lservedtheforegoingdocumentdescribedasAMENDMENT TO
REQUESTFORCFRTIFICATEOFAPPEALABILITY FRAP22(b)oninterestedpart
ies
inthisactionbydepositingatrtlecopythereof,whichwasenclosedinasealedenvelope,with
postagefullyprepaid,intheUnitedStatesMail,addressedasfollows:
AaronMitchellFontana KevinM.Mccormick
PaulB.Beach BENTON,ORR,DUVAL&BUCKINGHAM
LAWRENCEBEACHALLEN&CHOI,PC 39N.CaliforniaStreet
100WestBroadway,Ste.1200 P.O.Boxl178
Glendale,CA 91210-1219 Ventura,CA 93002
JudgeJohnF.Walter MagistrateJudgeCarlaM.Woelzrle
USDistrictCourt,Courtroom 16 USDistrictCourt,RoybalBldg,Crtrm 640
312N.SpringStreet 255EastTempleStreet
LosAngeles,CA 90012 LosAngeles,CA 90012
lcertifyanddeclare,underpenal
tyofperjuryunderthelawsoftheUnitedStatesof
AmericaandtheStateofCalifornia,thattheforegoingistrueandcorrect.
Executedonthis22dayofJuly,2009,atAltadena,California.
G G PHEE
ar
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 12 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW

Central District of California,
v. Los Angeles
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

et al., ORDER
Before: KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge.
Under Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), appellant need not show
that he is probably correct or that there is a substantial likelihood that he is correct
in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is
required if he demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the district court's
assessment of his constitutional claims “debatable.” (Id. at 338.) Accordingly,
appellant is granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the trial
judge should have recused himself. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); see also 9th
Cir.R.22-1(e).
dk/COA
A review of this court’s docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for
this appeal remain due. Within 14 days of the filing date of this order, appellant
shall (1) pay to the district court the $455.00 filing and docketing fees for this
appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or (2) file in this court a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a completed CJA Form 23. Failure
automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir.
R. 42-1.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of CJA Form 23 on appellant.
If appellant pays the fees, the following briefing schedule shall apply: The
opening brief is due September 9, 2009; the answering brief is due October 9,
2008; the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering
brief. If appellant files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the briefing schedule
will be set upon disposition of the motion.
Appellant’s remaining motions and requests will be addressed by separate
order.
dk/COA 2 09-56073
OCJA 23 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT
Rev. 5/98 IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY, EXPERT OR OTHER COURT SERVICES WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE
IN UNITED STATES G MAGISTRATE G DISTRICT G APPEALS COURT or G OTHER PANEL (Specify below)
IN THE CASE OF LOCATION NUMBER
FOR
V.S.
AT
*
PERSON REPRESENTED (Show your full name) 1 G Defendant—Adult DOCKET NUMBERS
* 2
3
G
G
Defendant - Juvenile
Appellant
Magistrate
CHARGE/OFFENSE (describe if applicable & check box ÿ) G Felony

4
5
6
G
G
G
Probation Violator
Parole Violator
Habeas Petitioner
* District Court
Court of Appeals
G Misdemeanor 7 G 2255 Petitioner
8 G Material Witness
9 G Other
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING ABILITY TO PAY

Are you now employed? G Yes G No G Am Self-Employed
Name and address of employer:
IF YES, how much do you IF NO, give month and year of last employment
EMPLOY-
MENT earn per month? $ How much did you earn per month? $
If married is your Spouse employed? G Yes G No
IF YES, how much does your If a minor under age 21, what is your Parents or
Spouse earn per month? $ Guardian’s approximate monthly income? $
Have you received within the past 12 months any income from a business, profession or other form of self-employment, or in the form of
rent payments, interest, dividends, retirement or annuity payments, or other sources? G Yes G No
OTHER RECEIVED SOURCES
ASSETS INCOME IF YES, GIVE THE AMOUNT
9
RECEIVED & IDENTIFY $
THE SOURCES
CASH Have you any cash on hand or money in savings or checking accounts? G Yes G No IF YES, state total amount $
Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property (excluding ordinary household furnishings and
clothing)? G
Yes G No
VALUE DESCRIPTION
PROP-
ERTY IF YES, GIVE THE VALUE AND $
DESCRIBE IT
MARITAL STATUS Total List persons you actually support and your relationship to them
No. of
SINGLE Dependents
DEPENDENTS MARRIED
9 9
WIDOWED
SEPARATED OR
DIVORCED
OBLIGATIONS &
9
APARTMENT Creditors Total Debt Monthly Paymt.
DEBTS DEBTS & OR HOME:
MONTHLY $ $
BILLS $ $
(LIST ALL CREDITORS,
9
INCLUDING BANKS, $ $
LOAN COMPANIES,
$ $
CHARGE ACCOUNTS,
ETC.)
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date)
SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT
(OR PERSON REPRESENTED) *
Case: 09-56073 08/12/2009 Page: 1 of 2 ID: 7024494 DktEntry: 12-1
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge.
Under Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), appellant need not show
that he is probably correct or that there is a substantial likelihood that he is correct
in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is
required if he demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the district court's
assessment of his constitutional claims “debatable.” (Id. at 338.) Accordingly,
appellant is granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the trial
judge should have recused himself. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); see also 9th
Cir.R.22-1(e).
dk/COA
A review of this court’s docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for
this appeal remain due. Within 14 days of the filing date of this order, appellant
shall (1) pay to the district court the $455.00 filing and docketing fees for this
appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or (2) file in this court a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a completed CJA Form 23. Failure
automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir.
R. 42-1.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of CJA Form 23 on appellant.
If appellant pays the fees, the following briefing schedule shall apply: The
opening brief is due September 9, 2009; the answering brief is due October 9,
2008; the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering
brief. If appellant files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the briefing schedule
will be set upon disposition of the motion.
Appellant’s remaining motions and requests will be addressed by separate
order.
dk/COA 2 09-56073
OCJA 23 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT
Rev. 5/98 IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY, EXPERT OR OTHER COURT SERVICES WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE
IN UNITED STATES G MAGISTRATE G DISTRICT G APPEALS COURT or G OTHER PANEL (Specify below)
IN THE CASE OF LOCATION NUMBER
FOR
V.S.
AT
*
PERSON REPRESENTED (Show your full name) 1 G Defendant—Adult DOCKET NUMBERS
* 2
3
G
G
Defendant - Juvenile
Appellant
Magistrate
CHARGE/OFFENSE (describe if applicable & check box ÿ) G Felony

4
5
6
G
G
G
Probation Violator
Parole Violator
Habeas Petitioner
* District Court
Court of Appeals
G Misdemeanor 7 G 2255 Petitioner
8 G Material Witness
9 G Other
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING ABILITY TO PAY

Are you now employed? G Yes G No G Am Self-Employed
Name and address of employer:
IF YES, how much do you IF NO, give month and year of last employment
EMPLOY-
MENT earn per month? $ How much did you earn per month? $
If married is your Spouse employed? G Yes G No
IF YES, how much does your If a minor under age 21, what is your Parents or
Spouse earn per month? $ Guardian’s approximate monthly income? $
Have you received within the past 12 months any income from a business, profession or other form of self-employment, or in the form of
rent payments, interest, dividends, retirement or annuity payments, or other sources? G Yes G No
OTHER RECEIVED SOURCES
ASSETS INCOME IF YES, GIVE THE AMOUNT
9
RECEIVED & IDENTIFY $
THE SOURCES
CASH Have you any cash on hand or money in savings or checking accounts? G Yes G No IF YES, state total amount $
Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property (excluding ordinary household furnishings and
clothing)? G
Yes G No
VALUE DESCRIPTION
PROP-
ERTY IF YES, GIVE THE VALUE AND $
DESCRIBE IT
MARITAL STATUS Total List persons you actually support and your relationship to them
No. of
SINGLE Dependents
DEPENDENTS MARRIED
9 9
WIDOWED
SEPARATED OR
DIVORCED
OBLIGATIONS &
9
APARTMENT Creditors Total Debt Monthly Paymt.
DEBTS DEBTS & OR HOME:
MONTHLY $ $
BILLS $ $
(LIST ALL CREDITORS,
9
INCLUDING BANKS, $ $
LOAN COMPANIES,
$ $
CHARGE ACCOUNTS,
ETC.)
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date)
SIGNATURE OF DEFENDANT
(OR PERSON REPRESENTED) *
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
Appellant's motions and submissions to this court, received on July 20, 23,
29 and 30 and August 6, 2009, are ordered filed.
Appellant's request for a certificate of appealability is addressed by separate
order.
Appellant's remaining motions and requests – including his request for
immediate release pending appeal – are hereby denied.
dk/COA
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order denying his
request for immediate release pending appeal is denied.
dk/COA
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 15 2009

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW

v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: TASHIMA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Appellant's second motion for immediate release is denied. No further
motions for immediate release pending appeal shall be filed or entertained.
No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order
shall be filed or entertained.
The opening brief has been filed; the answering brief is due October 9, 2009;
and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering
brief.
ec/MOATT
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2009


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s “emergency motion to immediately grant writ of habeas corpus
based upon opening brief,” filed September 17, 2009, is denied to the extent
appellant seeks immediate release from custody, because on September 15, 2009,
the court denied appellant’s second motion for immediate release and stated that no
further motions for immediate release pending appeal shall be filed or entertained.
To the extent appellant seeks expedited consideration of this appeal, that
request is granted. The answering brief is due October 9, 2009. The reply brief is
due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Because this appeal is
being expedited, the Clerk shall not grant any extension of time to file the briefs
under 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2.
SNR/MOATT
The Clerk shall calendar this case during the week of December 7-11, 2009,
in Pasadena, California.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly Dwyer
Clerk of Court
By: Sunil N. Rao

Motions Attorney/Deputy Clerk
9th Cir. R. 27-7
General Orders/Appendix A
SNR/MOATT 2 09-56073
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED
OCT 13 2009
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
M O LLY C . D W YER , C LER K O F C OU R T
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-
Petitioner - Appellant, CW
Central District of California, Los
v. Angeles

et al., ORDER
The Answering Brief submitted by Appellee Sheriff of Los Angeles County

(“Sheriff Baca”) on October 9, 2009 is filed.
Within five (5) working days of the filing of this order, Appellee is ordered to file
ten (10) copies of the brief in paper format, with a Red cover, accompanied by
certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical
to the version submitted electronically. A sample certificate is available on the
Court’s website, www.ca9.uscourts.gov, at the CM/ECF button.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly C. Dwyer
Clerk of Court
By: Liora Anis

Deputy Clerk
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 16 2009


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s motion to strike the answering briefs and request for judicial
notice are referred to the panel assigned to hear the merits of this appeal.
All further filings shall be referred to the merits panel.
The reply brief remains due October 23, 2009.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly Dwyer
Clerk of Court
By: Sunil N. Rao

Motions Attorney/Deputy Clerk
9th Cir. R. 27-7
General Orders/Appendix A
SNR/MOATT
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2009


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s motion to strike Respondents’ answering brief is DENIED.
Appellant’s request for judicial notice of California Government Code §§
68220 et. seq. is DENIED.
Appellant’s oversized reply brief, which was filed on October 22, 2009, is
deemed filed.
The panel unanimously finds that the facts and legal arguments in this case
are adequately presented in the briefs and record and that the decisional process
would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Pursuant to Fed. R. App.
P. 34(a)(2), it is therefore ordered that the case be submitted on the briefs, without
oral argument on December 10, 2009, in Pasadena, California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FOR THE COURT:
MOLLY C. DWYER
Clerk of Court
By: Shane Colegrove

Deputy Clerk
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 24 2009


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandate to Immediately Order
Trial Court to Enter Writ of Habeas Corpus or Issue Order to Show Cause is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
MOLLY C. DWYER
CLERK OF COURT
By: Shane Colegrove

Deputy Clerk
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 04 2009


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s “Request for Judicial Notice of Entire Appellate District’s Self-
Recusals in the ‘Sturgeon’ Appeals” is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
MOLLY C. DWYER
CLERK OF COURT
By: Shane Colegrove

Deputy Clerk
ProfessorEmeri
Mathematics
tusDani
elH.Gottl
ieb R E C E 1V E D
MO1 -LY().DWYEF),CLERK
3516vi
Mari
aDolce
nadelRey
IJ.S.coun'fOFAPPEALS '
v.
o'
')
rw
.:
y.
1
.'
)
y
.
z
':
.
;
k
p.
t.4
J.,'<
%.;j
>j
:h.
y
. .r>
.
(
CA90292
dhg7@macxcom 4 v'
.
f
.
1
,)(
.
'
t
-/
'
.
,.
.'
,
.
j
'
.
y
:
'
k
.
2
.
j
s
.
j
,
,
t
,
4
.
r
y
,
-
)
.
-
w
)
.
,
$
(
,
-
t
)
3.
h
.
j
z
j
.
1
.
y
x
?
y
,
&
'
)
$
-
>
w
-
;
y
,
r
j
:
)
.
%
'
j
.
'
a
)
,
ç
j
.,.
-..
p.
y
rr
j
.y
.
l )
à,
:
t.
.(
j:
.
. .
.
http'
.//hor
mepagexmac.com -ILi
-D
c &'
h
'
qo
.
k.î
)
.
s
u
j
.
f
x.
j
:
.)
;
,
?
.
à
;
.
.
;
h
!
)
:
$
.
-
;
k
4
,
.
j
.
,
k
s
i
.
,:
.
,.4
sy.ù.
;,
ï.
s
,
. ?
'(
.
,
j
.
,
r
p
y
z
.
yj
;
:
.
;
r
,
.
'
-
-
,
:
t.
;
,
j
j
.
,
s
ë
,
,
..
.
'
/1t / Mathenlati
t
)sConsul
tant
DATE
-
. INI
TI
AL
ATTN:PanelJusticesAssignedtoCase#09-56873,SetforHearing12/10/2009
U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit
95SeventhStreet
SanFrancisco,CA94103
Date12/7/2009
RE: AmicusCuriaeBriefSubmissionforConsideration' ,
NinthCircuitCgseNo.09-56073.DistrictCourtCaseNo,CV-09-1914JFW (CW)
DearPanel:
lam aretiredmathematicsprofessor.Myinterestintheabovematterstemsfrom myformerroleasan
educatorandpresentactivitiesasaconsultantastheyrelatetotheperceivedhonesty(orlackthereotlof
thejudicialsystem,combinedwithmyuniqueperspectivefrombeingamemberoftheMarinaStrand
Colony11Homeownersassociation.NotethatMarinaStrandColony11vsLosAnglelesCountyandDel
ReyShoresistheoriginatingcasefortheDecember10Hearing.
lam awareoftherequirementthatamicusbriefsbesubmittedbyattorneyslicensedtopracticebeftxe
yourCourt.However,1havebeenunabletoretainonewillingtorisktheircareers,giventhèissues,
ghd
circumstances.
lhavenonethelesspreparedtheenclosedamicuscuri
aeintheinterestsofjusticeandrespectfullyre-
questthatyougivetheseissuesdueconsideration.
Sincerely,
:
,:z
, wkt*
4#.Z/
J''
-
>-e
.
,
t
''
-
DANIELH.GOTTLIEB
DHG/mlm
Enclosure
Richard1.Fine
AaronMitchellFontana,Esq.
PaulB.Beach'Esq.
KevinM.Mccormick,Esq.
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Appellant’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Emergency Petition
for Writ of Mandate” is DENIED.

FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s “Motion to Reconsider Clerk’s Denial of Requests for Judicial
Notice” is DENIED. As to the request for judicial notice of California
Government Code §§ 68220 – 68222, however, we note that the request is denied
only because it is unnecessary to request judicial notice of a statute. The panel will
consult the parties’ cited legal authorities in its consideration of this appeal.
FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Dr. Daniel Gottlieb’s motion for amicus curiae status and submission of an
amicus curiae brief is DENIED.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2009

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
et al.,
Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 10, 2009**

Pasadena, California
Richard Fine appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for
habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court correctly concluded that Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge Yaffe’s refusal to recuse himself from Fine’s contempt proceedings was not
“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law” or an “unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see
also Jones v. Ryan, 583 F.3d 626, 636 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review). A judge’s
failure to recuse himself results in a constitutional violation where “the probability
of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be
constitutionally tolerable.” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252,
2257 (2009) (citation and quotation omitted). Fine asserts that Judge Yaffe was
intolerably biased because he received employment benefits from Los Angeles
County, a party to the underlying litigation. However, unlike the circumstances of
Caperton, Judge Yaffe’s receipt of these benefits did not give him a “direct
personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in the matter. Id. at 2259 (citing Tumey v.
Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)). Nor was Judge Yaffe so “personally embroiled” that
he could not preside impartially. Crater v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119, 1132 (9th Cir.
2007). Fine’s argument that he “exposed” Judge Yaffe for receiving “criminal
payments” is belied by a California statute expressly providing that judges “shall
continue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court then paying the
benefits.” See Cal. Gov. Code § 68220; see also Sturgeon v. County of L.A., 84
2
Cal. Rptr. 3d 242 (2008) (rejecting taxpayer’s contention that judicial
compensation was an unconstitutional waste or gift of public funds, but finding
that judicial compensation required statutory prescription).
AFFIRMED.
3
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Office of the Clerk

95 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Information Regarding Judgment and Post-Judgment Proceedings

(December 2009)
Judgment
• This Court has filed and entered the attached judgment in your case.
Fed. R. App. P. 36. Please note the filed date on the attached
decision because all of the dates described below run from that date,
not from the date you receive this notice.
Mandate (Fed. R. App. P. 41; 9th Cir. R. 41-1 & -2)

• The mandate will issue 7 days after the expiration of the time for
filing a petition for rehearing or 7 days from the denial of a petition
for rehearing, unless the Court directs otherwise. To file a motion to
stay the mandate, file it electronically via the appellate ECF system
or, if you are a pro se litigant or an attorney with an exemption from
using appellate ECF, file one original motion on paper.
Petition for Panel Rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40; 9th Cir. R. 40-1)
Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35; 9th Cir. R. 35-1 to -3)
(1) A. Purpose (Panel Rehearing):

• A party should seek panel rehearing only if one or more of the following
grounds exist:
► A material point of fact or law was overlooked in the decision;
► A change in the law occurred after the case was submitted which
appears to have been overlooked by the panel; or
► An apparent conflict with another decision of the Court was not
addressed in the opinion.
• Do not file a petition for panel rehearing merely to reargue the case.
B. Purpose (Rehearing En Banc)

• A party should seek en banc rehearing only if one or more of the following
grounds exist:
Post Judgment Form - Rev. 12/2009 1

► Consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure or maintain

uniformity of the Court’s decisions; or
► The proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance; or
► The opinion directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another
court of appeals or the Supreme Court and substantially affects a
rule of national application in which there is an overriding need for
national uniformity.
(2) Deadlines for Filing:

• A petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1).
• If the United States or an agency or officer thereof is a party in a civil case,
the time for filing a petition for rehearing is 45 days after entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1).
• If the mandate has issued, the petition for rehearing should be
accompanied by a motion to recall the mandate.
• See Advisory Note to 9th Cir. R. 40-1 (petitions must be received on the
due date).
• An order to publish a previously unpublished memorandum disposition
extends the time to file a petition for rehearing to 14 days after the date of
the order of publication or, in all civil cases in which the United States or
an agency or officer thereof is a party, 45 days after the date of the order of
publication. 9th Cir. R. 40-2.
(3) Statement of Counsel

• A petition should contain an introduction stating that, in counsel’s
judgment, one or more of the situations described in the “purpose” section
above exist. The points to be raised must be stated clearly.
(4) Form & Number of Copies (9th Cir. R. 40-1; Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2))
• The petition shall not exceed 15 pages unless it complies with the
alternative length limitations of 4,200 words or 390 lines of text.
• The petition must be accompanied by a copy of the panel’s decision being
challenged.
• An answer, when ordered by the Court, shall comply with the same length
limitations as the petition.
• If a pro se litigant elects to file a form brief pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-1, a
petition for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc need not comply with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.

• The petition or answer must be accompanied by a Certificate of

Compliance found at Form 11, available on our website at under Forms.
• You may file a petition electronically via the appellate ECF system. No
paper copies are required unless the Court orders otherwise. If you are a
pro se litigant or an attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF
system, file one original petition on paper. No additional paper copies are
required unless the Court orders otherwise.
Bill of Costs (Fed. R. App. P. 39, 9th Cir. R. 39-1)

• The Bill of Costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.
• See Form 10 for additional information, available on our website at under
Forms.
Attorneys Fees
• Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1 describes the content and due dates for attorneys
fees applications.
• All relevant forms are available on our website at under Forms or by
telephoning (415) 355-7806.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

• Please refer to the Rules of the United States Supreme Court at
Counsel Listing in Published Opinions

• Please check counsel listing on the attached decision.
• If there are any errors in a published opinion, please send a letter in
writing within 10 days to:
► West Publishing Company; 610 Opperman Drive; PO Box 64526;
St. Paul, MN 55164-0526 (Attn: Kathy Blesener, Senior Editor);
► and electronically file a copy of the letter via the appellate ECF
system by using “File Correspondence to Court,” or if you are an
attorney exempted from using the appellate ECF system, mail the
Court one copy of the letter.

Form 10. Bill of Costs ................................................................................................................................(Rev. 12-1-09)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
BILL OF COSTS
Note: If you wish to file a bill of costs, it MUST be submitted on this form and filed, with the clerk, with proof of
service, within 14 days of the date of entry of judgment, and in accordance with 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. A
late bill of costs must be accompanied by a motion showing good cause. Please refer to FRAP 39, 28
U.S.C. § 1920, and 9th Circuit Rule 39-1 when preparing your bill of costs.
v. 9th Cir. No.
The Clerk is requested to tax the following costs against:
Cost Taxable
REQUESTED ALLOWED
under FRAP 39,
Each Column Must Be Completed To Be Completed by the Clerk
28 U.S.C. § 1920,
9th Cir. R. 39-1
No. of Pages per Cost per TOTAL No. of Pages per Cost per TOTAL
Docs. Doc. Page* COST Docs. Doc. Page* COST
Excerpt of Record $ $ $ $
Opening Brief $ $ $ $
Answering Brief $ $ $ $
Reply Brief $ $ $ $
Other** $ $ $ $
TOTAL: $ TOTAL: $
* Costs per page may not exceed .10 or actual cost, whichever is less. 9th Circuit Rule 39-1.
** Other: Any other requests must be accompanied by a statement explaining why the item(s) should be taxed
pursuant to 9th Circuit Rule 39-1. Additional items without such supporting statements will not be
considered.
Attorneys' fees cannot be requested on this form.
Continue to next page.

Form 10. Bill of Costs - Continued
I, , swear under penalty of perjury that the services for which costs are taxed
were actually and necessarily performed, and that the requested costs were actually expended as listed.
Signature
("s/" plus attorney's name if submitted electronically)
Date
Name of Counsel:
Attorney for:
(To Be Completed by the Clerk)
Date Costs are taxed in the amount of $
Clerk of Court
By: , Deputy Clerk

FILED


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Appellant’s “Request for Judicial Notice of Monterey County Judges’ Public
Statements” is DENIED.
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2010


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
The panel has voted to deny Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing. Judge
Reinhardt and Judge Wardlaw have voted to deny Appellant’s petitions for
rehearing en banc, and Judge Trott so recommends. The full court has been
advised of the suggestions for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested
a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions
for rehearing en banc are denied. No further motions shall be entertained in this
appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2010


v. Los Angeles

et al., ORDER
Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify Judges and to Void the Memorandum
Disposition and Other Orders is DENIED.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED
FEB 18 2010
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner - Appellant,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW
v. U.S. District Court for Central
California, Los Angeles
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY; et al., MANDATE
The judgment of this Court, entered December 16, 2009, takes effect this
date.
This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule
41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FOR THE COURT:
Molly C. Dwyer
Clerk of Court
Gabriela Van Allen

Deputy Clerk

Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Et Al (09-56073)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Et Al (09-56073)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Digitally signed

10-03-27 Addendum #1 to Request for Opinion in re: PACER & CM/ECF –

1) Docket of the Appeal

4) Authentication – Proof of Service or Certificate of Service –as prerequisite for Entry of

Date Filed # Docket Text

7) Regardless of the similarity in format, the differences are profound:

E. Ambiguities in the Header Data of the Docket

Dated: March 27, 2010

Court Case Billing Court

Case Type Information:

RICHARD I. FINE (-: 1824367) Richard I. Fine

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Aaron Mitchell Fontana, Esquire, Attorney

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY Kevin Michael McCormick, Attorney

DANIEL HENRY GOTTLIEB Daniel Henry Gottlieb

Documents and Docket Summary

Include page numbers

Selected Pages: 0 Selected Size: 0 KB

PACER Service Center

lam Greg Mcphee. My businejsaddressis2450 N. LakeAvenue,PMB 227,

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Before: KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge.

that he is probably correct or that there is a substantial likelihood that he is correct

in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is

assessment of his constitutional claims “debatable.” (Id. at 338.) Accordingly,

appellant is granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the trial

to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a completed CJA Form 23. Failure

The Clerk shall serve a copy of CJA Form 23 on appellant.

will be set upon disposition of the motion.

Appellant’s remaining motions and requests will be addressed by separate

CHARGE/OFFENSE (describe if applicable & check box ÿ) G Felony

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING ABILITY TO PAY

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Before: KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge.

that he is probably correct or that there is a substantial likelihood that he is correct

in order to obtain a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is

assessment of his constitutional claims “debatable.” (Id. at 338.) Accordingly,

appellant is granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the trial

to proceed in forma pauperis, accompanied by a completed CJA Form 23. Failure

The Clerk shall serve a copy of CJA Form 23 on appellant.

will be set upon disposition of the motion.

Appellant’s remaining motions and requests will be addressed by separate

CHARGE/OFFENSE (describe if applicable & check box ÿ) G Felony

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING ABILITY TO PAY

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

29 and 30 and August 6, 2009, are ordered filed.

Appellant's request for a certificate of appealability is addressed by separate

Appellant's remaining motions and requests – including his request for

immediate release pending appeal – are hereby denied.

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

RICHARD I. FINE, No. 09-56073

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;

Before: SCHROEDER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.