COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In Re M.L.L., H.L., M.L., M.S., JR., & A.L., Persons Coming Under Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNADINO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, Petitioner/Respondent , M.L., S.R. & D.C., Respondent/Appellants. |
Case No.: J287762-66
NOTICE OF MOTION AND APPELLANT’S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE LOIS HAIGHT (C.C.P. Section 170.1)
|
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ALL PARTIES INTERESTED HEREIN:
Appellant respectfully requests Judge Erin K. Alexander recuse herself under the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section (§) 170.1 (a)(6)(C): “For any reason . . . A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.”
Appellant believes that any reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances would believe that Judge Erin is biased and prejudiced, and has ignored the law. “The standard for disqualification provided in Code Civ. Proc., 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(C), providing for disqualification for bias or prejudice where a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge is able to be impartial, is fundamentally an objective one. It represents a legislative judgment that, due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof, as well as the importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable person would entertain doubts concerning the judge’s impartiality, disqualification is mandated. To insure that proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person. This standard indicates that the decision is not based on the judge’s personal view of his own impartiality, and also suggests that the litigants’ necessarily partisan views do not provide the applicable frame of reference. Rather, the judge ought to consider how his participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
LACK OF JURISDICTION VOIDS JUDGE ERIN’S INTERLOCUTORY AND FINAL ORDERS IN THIS CASE
Void judgments lack jurisdiction and can legally be ignored as they neither bind, nor bar anyone. Obviously a judgment, though final and on the merits, has no binding force and is subject to collateral attack if it is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or person, and perhaps for excess of jurisdiction, or where it is obtained by extrinsic fraud. 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Judgment, 286, p. 828.)
CCP Section 473 permits a court, on noticed motion, to set aside void judgments and orders. Courts also possess inherent power to grant such relief. Reid v. Balter (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1194.
PRO PER PLEADINGS
“Pleadings in this case are being filed by AppellantsiIn Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991).”
It is held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (Puckett v. Cox 456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). And, Justice Blackin, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) “The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is not a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.”
CONCLUSION
Any reasonable person looking at the current bench in the Appellants’ case would see bias and prejudice against the Appellants, and, the ignoring of the law by Judge Erin K. Alexander.
Therefore, the Appellants respectfully request that Judge Erin K. Alexander and anyone under her supervision be disqualified under CCP 170.1(a)(6)(C) et seq. Appellants further request that the case be assigned to another department or in the alternative ask the Judicial Counsel to assign an independent Judge to this case.
In the best interest and for respect of the court this request for disqualification must be granted. The California legislature made reasonable decisions in these rules for disqualification and the rules must be followed.
DECLARATION OF APPELLANTS
We, M.L.L., H.L., M.L., M.S., JR., & A.L, Appellants, declare we are residents in California and we are the Appellants in this matter and declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, and can and will testify to such in any court or hearing. Executed in the state of California, in the County of San Bernardino, California.
Date:______________
_______________________
Enter Name
Father, in pro se
_______________________
Enter Name
Mother, in pro se
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.