Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00148-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN J. HOLLENBACK, JR.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:05-cv-0148 OWW DLB

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE 

Further Scheduling

Conference Date: 11/18/05

8:45 Ctrm. 2

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

September 9, 2005.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Plaintiff appeared in propria persona. 

Leslie F. Jensen, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Defendant Hollenback has violated Plaintiff’s civil

rights in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by depriving him

access to the judicial system on account of his race and

ethnicity.

2. As of 8/26/05 Plaintiff has not received response from

Defendant Hollenback.

3. As of 8/26/05 Plaintiff has not received Answer (in

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 84 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 5
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

accordance with F.R.C.P. Rule 8) to Amended Complaint filed on

7/6/05. 

4. Defendant Hollenback denies that the racist statements

attributed to him were ever made, although he has acknowledged

telling Plaintiff (in open court) that he intended to obtain a

child support order that would rattle his (Mr. Jones’ teeth). 

Contrary to what is claimed in the Amended Complaint, this

statement contained no reference to Mr. Jones’ race or ethnicity,

and it expressed nothing more than antipathy for the fact that

Mr. Jones was (and is) a “deadbeat dad” who would go to heroic

lengths to avoid supporting his child.

5. Defendant Hollenback further denies that any statement

made by him had the effect of dissuading Mr. Jones to drop the

contempt action that he had pending in the Stanislaus County

Superior Court. Shortly before the contempt charges were due to

be heard in that court, Mr. Jones filed a document under oath in

which he withdrew the contempt charges “without prejudice.” 

Chief among the reasons for this withdrawal was the need for a

proper investigation of complaints that Mr. Jones had filed

against various Stanislaus County judges. These complaints had

been lodged with the California Commission on Judicial

Performance. As Plaintiff sets forth in the sworn statement

regarding his dismissal of the pending contempt charges, he

simply did not want to go to trial in a forum that he considered

overwhelmingly biased against him.

6. Defendant Hollenback further contends that, as a matter

of law, the acts charged against him do not give rise to

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(c), in that such acts do not

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 84 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 5
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

amount to “discrimination” on the part of this Defendant.

7. Defendant Hollenback further contends that even if

Plaintiff were subjected to the acts and statements which appear

in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff did not suffer any cognizable

damages. Plaintiff has not alleged that he had a meritorious

case with respect to the underlying contempts, or that he

suffered any damages by reason of voluntarily dismissing those

contempt allegations.

8. Defendant Hollenback further contends that Plaintiff

should be sanctioned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for having

filed a false lawsuit against this Defendant.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The Plaintiff does not anticipate filing any amendments

to the pleadings at this time. 

2. Defendant Hollenback has moved to dismiss the Amended

Complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Defendant anticipates that this motion will be

granted. The court has previously afforded Plaintiff one (1)

opportunity to amend his pleadings following the court’s earlier

granting of a dismissal motion. Assuming that Defendant

Hollenback’s dismissal motion is again granted, the court should

deny further leave to amend. 

3. Defendant Hollenback has also moved to strike a number

of paragraphs from the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(f). Assuming that this motion is granted, but the

dismissal motion is denied, the court may well direct Plaintiff

to file a further amended complaint to “clean up” his existing

pleading.

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 84 Filed 09/13/05 Page 3 of 5
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

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff Melvin Jones, Jr., is a citizen of the

United States. 

2. Defendant John Hollenback, Jr., is an attorney

licensed to practice law in the State of California.

3. Defendant Hollenback acted as an attorney for Kea

Chahay in a family law dispute in the Stanislaus County Superior

Court during late 2003 and into mid-2004. 

4. Defendant Hollenback is a private attorney

retained to provide legal services to Ms. Chahay in the

Stanislaus County Superior Court case and is not an officer or

employee of Stanislaus County Superior Court or any other

governmental agency. 

5. Plaintiff Melvin Jones, in the family law cases in

Stanislaus County Superior Court, disagreed with rulings of the

Court and appointment of certain professionals related to child

custody issues which led to two federal lawsuits: 1) this case;

and 2) a related case entitled Jones v. Strangio. 

6. Mr. Jones initiated a series of contempt

proceedings against Ms. Chahay, including proceedings to be heard

in the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus on May

10, 2004. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. All remaining issues of fact are contested. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 84 Filed 09/13/05 Page 4 of 5
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

1. Jurisdiction in this case is disputed. 

2. If jurisdiction exists, venue s proper under 28

U.S.C. § 1391.

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are disputed.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Further Scheduling Conference.

1. A further scheduling conference will be held in this

case on November 18, 2005, at 8:45 a.m. in Courtroom 2 before the

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger. 

DATED: September 9, 2005.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

dlp jones v. hollenback sch con

Case 1:05-cv-00148-OWW -DLB Document 84 Filed 09/13/05 Page 5 of 5