elaine v. van beveren divorce lawyer sacramento sued in federal court for emotional distress,...

3
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 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-02559 GEB KJN PS v. THE LAW OFFICES OF ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, Individually, Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, filed his complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis on September 21, 2010. On December 1, 2010, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the court’s screening authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and granted leave to amend. (Order, Dec. 1, 2010, Dkt. No. 3.) On January 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging a federal claim for violations of his civil rights and several state law claims. (First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 4.) The court is also required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to Case 2:10-cv-02559-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 3

DESCRIPTION

Order authorizing service of complaint in federal lawsuit against Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren. Elaine V. Van Beveren is a Sacramento Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Family Law Executive Committee. Van Beveren is sued by self-represented pro per Robert Saunders for misconduct in her capacity as minor's counsel in a Sacramento Family Court case. For articles about Elaine Van Beveren at Sacramento Family Court News, visit this web page: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ELAINE%20VAN%20BEVERENFor articles about plaintiff Robert Saunders: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ROBERT%20SAUNDERSSacramento Family Court News is a nonprofit journalism organization publishing original, independent news, aggregated news, news analysis, opinion, satire and parody. Unlike the Sacramento Bee, Daily Journal Corporation publications, and local broadcast media we are independent of corporate, shareholder, advertiser and government influence. Our independence from outside influence allows SFCN to investigate and publish the stories that the self-censoring Judicial Branch legal community and mainstream media often are reluctant to report.Like ProPublica, much of our work is public interest investigative journalism that "shines a light on the exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those in power to vindicate the trust placed in them." We report on virtually all family court issues including divorce, child custody and visitation, child and spousal support, attorney fees and sanctions, court procedure and policy, and appeals from family court. We cover the financial and socioeconomic power imbalances often prevalent in family court cases. Oligarchical factions exert significant influence over many government institutions in California, and Sacramento Family Court is no exception. Socioeconomically disadvantaged court users often are treated as second-class citizens by the court, which operates a two-track system of justice providing preferential treatment to litigants who can afford representation by members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to evidence compiled by family court watchdogs and whistleblowers.Sacramento Family Court News Home Page: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com

TRANSCRIPT

  • 12

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    1

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    ROBERT SAUNDERS,

    Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-02559 GEB KJN PS

    v.

    THE LAW OFFICES OF ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, Individually,

    Defendants. ORDER

    /

    Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, filed his complaint and an

    application to proceed in forma pauperis on September 21, 2010. On December 1, 2010, the

    undersigned granted plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed plaintiffs

    complaint pursuant to the courts screening authority under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and granted

    leave to amend. (Order, Dec. 1, 2010, Dkt. No. 3.) On January 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a First

    Amended Complaint alleging a federal claim for violations of his civil rights and several state

    law claims. (First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 4.)

    The court is also required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in

    forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th

    Cir. 2001) (per curiam) ([T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to

    Case 2:10-cv-02559-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 3

    PatSFCN-2014-Full

  • 12

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    2

    prisoners.); accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Pursuant to

    28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss a case filed pursuant to the in forma

    pauperis statute if, at any time, it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the

    action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

    monetary relief against an immune defendant. See also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27 (It is also

    clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma

    pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.).

    The undersigned cannot conclude on the present record that plaintiffs action is

    frivolous, fails to state claims on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an

    immune defendant. The undersigned reserves decision as to plaintiffs claims until the record is

    sufficiently developed, and this order does not preclude defendants from challenging plaintiffs

    complaint through a timely motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or other

    appropriate methods of challenging plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the

    undersigned will order service of the First Amended Complaint on defendants Elaine Van

    Beveren, an individual, and the Law Offices of Elain Van Beveren.

    For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

    1. Service of plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is appropriate for the

    following defendants: Elaine Van Beveren, an individual, and the Law Offices of Elain Van

    Beveren.

    2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith all process pursuant to

    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

    3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one

    summons, an endorsed copy of the First Amended Complaint, this courts scheduling order, and

    the forms providing notice of the magistrate judges availability to exercise jurisdiction for all

    purposes.

    4. Plaintiff is advised that to effectuate service, the U.S. Marshal will require:

    Case 2:10-cv-02559-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 3

  • 12

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    26

    3

    a. One completed summons;

    b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant to be served;

    c. A copy of the complaint for each defendant to be served, with an

    extra copy for the U.S. Marshal; and

    d. A copy of this courts scheduling order and related documents for

    each defendant to be served; and

    5. Plaintiff shall supply the United States Marshal, within 30 days from the

    date this order is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effectuate service of process, and

    shall, within 10 days thereafter, file a statement with the court that such documents have been

    submitted to the United States Marshal.

    6. The U.S. Marshal shall serve process, with copies of this courts

    scheduling order and related documents, within 90 days of receipt of the required information

    from plaintiff, without prepayment of costs. The United States Marshal shall, within 10 days

    thereafter, file a statement with the court that such documents have been served. If the U.S.

    Marshal is unable, for any reason, to effect service of process on any defendant, the Marshal shall

    promptly report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned.

    7. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the United States

    Marshal, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930-2030).

    8. Plaintiffs failure to comply with this order may result in a

    recommendation that this action be dismissed.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.

    DATED: February 9, 2011

    _____________________________________KENDALL J. NEWMANUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

    Case 2:10-cv-02559-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 3