1

Mary Jones

1805 El Cerrito Pl. #209

Los Angeles, Ca 90068

424-832-9295

super_lioness@yahoo.com

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-8789-DMG-SH
HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE
Plaintiff,
U.S.DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9
10

MARY JONES,

11
12
13

MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEVEN
HILLMAN UNDER 28 U.S.C. 455 (A)
(B) (1) IN THIS CASE.

v.

14
15
16

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., ET. AL.,

17

Defendant,

18
19
20

MOTION DATE: May 23, 2014

A.M.

9:30

LOCATION: CENTRAL DISTRICT

FEDERAL COURT HOUSE
FLOOR 2 ROOM 7

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

THIS IS NOTICE TO THE COURT AND TO THE DEFENDANTS Plaintiff Mary Jones

28

files Motion for the Disqualification of Magistrate Judge Steven Hillman under L.R. 72-5

Motion To Disqualify Magistrate Judge. A motion to disqualify a Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144 or 455 shall be made to the assigned District Judge.

This motion is made following the attempt with both counsels pursuant to L.R. 7-3 on

April 14, 2014. When Mary Jones called James Losee (415-703-5028) at about 9am

counsel for Defendant Caplane the lady who answered the phone stated he was on vacation

(she did not want to give her name). Mary Jones then asked for Mr. Sullivan. He was not

available to talk so she left a message he return her call. Mr. Sullivan never returned the

call. Mary Jones called Terry Barak on his cell phone and his number listed on his filing

papers (213-897-2119). He did not answer the cell and no answering service picked up.

10

The office phone had an answering machine where Mary Jones left a message for him to

11

please return her call. Mr. Barack did not return the phone call.

12

Dated April 14, 2014

13

Respectfully submitted:

14

____________________

15

Mary Jones, Plaintiff in pro se

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

I. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR

25

DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARTHUR NAKAZATO

26

UNDER 28 U.S.C. 455 (A) (B) (1) IN THIS CASE.

27

A. LITIGATES HAVE A DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE.

28

I.TITLE 28 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE: 47, 144, 455, AND 2106.

5. 28 U.S.C. 455(A).

A.Magistrate Hillman Explicitly Stated In His Report He Was Partial To The

Defefendant.

4
5

In the reports and recommendation of Magistrate Hillman stated three times he could not

understand my compliant.

He said he was taking Defendant Caplanes pleadings in orders to form what my

complaint was about. He said he was taking what was in the Defendants Caplanes

pleading to provide a summary.

10

Magistrate Hillman reported he could not understand enough of Plaintiffs pleading to see

11

if Felder Doctrine was applicable. As it is for certain Magistrate Hillman can read, this is

12

obviously intentionally. In the pleadings and in this complaint there was ad-nauseam

13

amount of pleadings saying the higher WCAB denied appellate review by providing

14

unlimited appeals. As well, the attached order by Defendant

15

Caplane for which the Magistrate referred to was one such unlimited appeal. And, without

16

taking the Plaintiff words per se Magistrate Hillman could count from 2005 to 2014 and

17

come to the number of nine years without trial and final judgment which is indicative on its

18

face of injustice and lack of timely termination and speedy trial as is his oath to uphold the

19

Constitution. There is no misunderstanding, the continued saga of injustice in California

20

courts due to the outgrowth caused by the Regents being given dictatorial freedom in the

21

California Constitution.

22

Magistrate Hillman said the compliant had no cause on which to base a claim of remedy. If

23

the compliant stated anything it was the Plaintiff was injured while working under

24

retaliation for the Regents in January 21, 2005 and had been refused trial /judgment/order

25

in the WCAB courts to current time. The pleadings stated there were unlimited appeals

26

to the San Francisco Board which denied appellate review and justice. No person or

27

judge could read this complaint and these pleadings and not read this. To deny the first

28

amendment right to grievance and to prohibit or interfere with the right to receive

governmental redress of grievance is a violation of the Plaintiffs fundamental civil right

first amendment. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the

making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of

religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press,

interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a

governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the

ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

When one is denied a judgment/trial from 2005-2014 it does not need much more to

understand harm was done and remedy is due. With this is the denial of a speedy trial.

10

And, further, there were numerous other civil rights deprivations in this compliant. But,

11

this is the most obvious to any court. The denial of final judgment, denial of any judgment

12

was in the lower WCAB court which makes determination for injured workers. (The order

13

in the higher WCAB was not about Mary Jones injury. That was just the Regents getting

14

the higher WCAB to cancel trial date over and over in unlimited appeals).

15

Magistrate Hillman Violated The Oath Of Office He Swore Under Penalty Of

16

Perjurgy To Uphold The United States Constitution.

17

Federal law says a court must look more favorable on the non-moving party. It is

18

clear in this report he looked at the Defendant most favorably and with bias and

19

prejudice on their behalf. The power of the Regents and the power of the Defendants

20

is understandable as Mary Jones knows how profound it all is but the power of the

21

U.S. Constitution AND justice should be stronger if you are a Judge. It should be

22

impartial or it is worse than a criminal. And should provide a haven for deprivations

23

of Constitutoinal violations but it is the opposite.

24

Article VI

25

Judges take an oath sworn under penalty of perjury to uphold the United States

26

Constitution. Magistrate Hillman chose to ignore Plaintiffs harm and deprivation she has

27

endured and the mandate of the United States Constitution Article VI and 42 U.S. Code

28

1983. He chose to forget he took an oath under penalty of perjury to uphold it.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in

Pursuance there of; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the

Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the

Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or

Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

6
7

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the

several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the

United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to

10

support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a

11

Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. U. S.

12

CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VI.

13
14

The report from p 9-10 talked about why the Plaintiff could not name the WCAB agency.

15

This is evidence too the Magistrate did not read or intentionally ignored that Plaintiff never

16

once in any paper named the

17

WCAB and went out of her way to refute this statement when Defendant Caplane kept

18

making it. (doc filed February 5, 2014 Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants refilled

19

notice of motion to dismiss)p1 ln26-26 First and foremost the complaint does not name

20

the WCAB

21

Because Magistrate Hillman chose to ignore the Supreme Law, his oath he took when he

22

raise his hand, fundamental civil rights deprivations of the Plaintiff plead in the complaint

23

and pleadings, explicitly stated in his report signed by him he used the words of Defendant

24

Caplane instead of Plaintiff and on her behalf as the non-moving party, ruled for big wealth

25

and the high profile Defendants, the Plaintiff asks this court to disqualify him in this case.

26

Respectfully submitted:

27

______________________

28

Mary Jones, Plaintiff in pro se April 14 2014

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28