Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01703/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01703-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

- 1 - 10cv1703WQH (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY CHARLES ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV1703 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

SAN DIEGO FORMER DISTRICT

ATTORNEY PAUL PFINGST, in his

professional and individual capacities;

GREG S. MAIZLISH, Public Defender in

his professional and individual capacities;

BILL KOLENDER, San Diego County

Sheriff, in his professional and individual

capacities; LENICE JOY LOPEZ, San

Diego County Sheriff, in her professional

“Sheriff Detective” and individual

capacities,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30) filed by

Defendant Paul Pfingst (“Pfingst”) and the Motion to Disqualify District Judge of Southern

District California Judge William Q. Hayes and all District Court Judges of California (ECF

No. 32) filed by Mary Charles Robinson (“Plaintiff”). 

BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2010, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint. (ECF No.

1). On September 10, 2010, Defendants Greg S. Maizlish, Bill Kolender, and Joy Lopez filed

a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 8). On January 24, 2011, this Court issued an

Case 3:10-cv-01703-WQH-JMA Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 1 of 6
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

- 2 - 10cv1703WQH (JMA)

Order granting the Motion to Dismiss as to Defendants Greg S. Maizlish, Bill Kolender, and

Joy Lopez on the grounds that Plaintiff’s civil rights Complaint is barred by the statute of

limitations and is barred because a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply her

conviction was

invalid. (ECF No. 28). 

On February 1, 2011, Defendant Paul Pfingst filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.

30). On February 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Disqualify District Judge of Southern

District California Judge William Q. Hayes and all District Court Judges of California (ECF

No. 32). On March 3, 2011, Defendant Pfingst filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion.

(ECF No. 34). 

I. Motion to Disqualify filed by Plaintiff Robinson

Plaintiff contends that this Court should be disqualified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

455(a)-(b). (ECF No. 32 at 2). Plaintiff contends that the Court’s dismissal of Defendants

from her Complaint is evidence of bias and prejudice against Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends

that this Court’s dismissal of Defendants Greg S. Maizlish, Bill Kolender, and Joy Lopez

violated criminal law. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a district judge “shall disqualify himself in any

proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). 

Pursuant to § 455(b), a district judge must also disqualify himself “[w]here he has a

personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed

evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b). The standard for recusal

under § 455 is “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would

conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Mayes v.

Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotations omitted). “[J]udicial

rulings alone almost never constitute [a] valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). 

In this case, the Plaintiff’s sole basis for asserting that this Court should disqualify

is her disagreement with the Court’s prior rulings in this case. Plaintiff has failed to show

Case 3:10-cv-01703-WQH-JMA Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 - 10cv1703WQH (JMA)

that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that [this Court’s]

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Mayes, 729 F.2d at 607. The Motion to

Disqualify (ECF No. 32) is DENIED. 

II. Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Pfingst

Plaintiff asserts a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking

compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000,000 and punitive damages in the amount

of $100,000,000 for Constitutional violations during her arrest, detention, confinement. (ECF

No. 1 at 1, 33-34). Plaintiff asserts claims for the following: (1) retaliation against Plaintiff

for “accusing Stafford, [Virginia] Department of Social Services of in differential (sic)

treatment” by maliciously extraditing and prosecuting her with “no probable cause”; (2)

wrongful arrest and “finding [Plaintiff] guilty before trial;” (3) conspiracy to deny Plaintiff her

Constitutional rights by arresting, detaining, and extraditing her; (4) malicious abuse of process

because Defendants knew that “the complaint initiated was groundless;” (5) and denial of

access to the courts because “attempts at seeking relief in State and Federal Courts were

thwarted by refusing to hear claim, restricting pro se litigation and den[ying] publically

financed assistance.” Id. at 25-33.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Paul Pfingst was the District Attorney of the

County of San Diego. On October 2, 2000, Plaintiff was indicted in Stafford, Virginia and

charged with false application and welfare fraud. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2. On January 19, 2001,

Plaintiff’s bond was revoked and the Governor of Virginia issued a warrant for her arrest. Id.

at ¶¶ 5, 7. On April 24, 2001, the Governor of California issued a warrant for Plaintiff’s

arrest. Id. at ¶ 9. On March 20, 2001, Plaintiff was “first apprehended” on the charges from

Virginia while she was incarcerated in Riverside, California. Id. at ¶ 11. On March 23, 2010,

Plaintiff declined to sign a waiver of extradition. Id. at ¶ 12. A fugitive complaint was filed

against her and “San Diego County District Attorney and Stafford County Commonwealth

deprived [Plaintiff] the right to access the courts.” Id at ¶¶ 13-14, 18. A copy of the fugitive

complaint was filed in the San Diego Superior Court which contained the signature of Sheriff

Detective Lenice Joy Lopez and did not contain a signature from a District Attorney; therefore,

Case 3:10-cv-01703-WQH-JMA Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 - 10cv1703WQH (JMA)

Lopez “impersonated a district Attorney.” Id. at ¶¶ 21, 27. “[The abuse was intentionally

committed by San Diego, County, District Attorney [Pfinsgt] ....” Id. at ¶ 31. 

The Complaint alleges that on April 18, 2002, a California governor’s warrant was

filed which included “a totally different charge” against Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 24. Defendants

“worked in concert to deceive the Court and change the charge to read differently ... to

extradite [Plaintiff] illegally to Stafford, Virginia. Id. at ¶ 25. On December 3, 2001, Plaintiff

“was forced to sign [a] plea agreement ....” Id. at ¶ 105. Defendants knew that the charges

against Plaintiff were “groundless.” Id. at ¶ 138. Plaintiff claims that her “attempts in seeking

relief in State and Federal Court were thwarted ....” Id. at ¶ 141. 

Defendant Pfingst seeks to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff

challenges a state court conviction which has not been invalidated, that Plaintiff’s claims are

time-barred, and that the claims against Pfingst rely on supervisory liability. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)

is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support

a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990).

To sufficiently state a claim to relief and survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint

“does not need detailed factual allegations” but the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555 (2007). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action will not do.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). When considering a motion to

dismiss, a court must accept as true all “well-pleaded factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

--- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). “[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss,

the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be

plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted).

Case 3:10-cv-01703-WQH-JMA Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 - 10cv1703WQH (JMA)

To determine the statute of limitations applicable to a claim brought under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, the court applies the statute of limitations for personal injury in the forum state.

Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Azer v. Connell, 306 F.3d 930,

936 (9th Cir. 2002)). The time for bringing a personal injury claim in California and Virginia

is within two years. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 335.1; Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243. Plaintiff was

convicted on December 3, 2002. Plaintiff’s claim stems from her conviction. Plaintiff filed

this Complaint on August 13, 2010. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s civil rights Complaint

is barred by the statute of limitations and the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to

support a claim that the statute of limitations should be tolled.

In addition, “[w]hen a plaintiff who has been convicted of a crime under state law

seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor

of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. If the

answer is yes, the suit is barred.” Hooper v. County of San Diego, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 9732,

at *2 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted). Plaintiff “must demonstrate the invalidity of his

confinement before [s]he is entitled to relief[]” regardless of whether the Complaint seeks

damages or equitable relief. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005); Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994); Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997)

(discussing Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997)). “[W]here ‘establishing the basis for the

damages claim necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of the conviction,’ a § 1983 action will

not lie ‘unless ... the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated[.]’” Wilkinson, 544

U.S. at 80 (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 487). Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th

Cir.2000). 

Plaintiff seeks damages under § 1983 for Constitutional violations related to her

conviction. A judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would necessarily imply her conviction was

invalid. See Hooper, 2011 WL 9732, at *2. Plaintiff has failed to allege in her Complaint that

her conviction has previously been invalidated; therefore, Plaintiff’s claims for damages are

barred. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81-82. Defendant Pfingst’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: (1) the Motion to Disqualify District Judge of

Case 3:10-cv-01703-WQH-JMA Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 - 10cv1703WQH (JMA)

Southern District California Judge William Q. Hayes and all District Court Judges of

California (ECF No. 32) filed by Mary Charles Robinson is DENIED; and (2) the Motion to

Dismiss (ECF No. 30) filed by Defendant Paul Pfingst is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close

the case. 

DATED: March 30, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01703-WQH-JMA Document 35 Filed 03/30/11 Page 6 of 6