Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00225-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN BRUMBAUGH, et al., CASE NO. CV F 06-0225 AWI LJO

Petitioners, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT

IN AND FOR THE COUNTIES OF

AMADOR, CALVERAS AND SANTA

CLARA, et al,

Respondents. 

 /

INTRODUCTION

On February 27, 2006, Allen Brumaugh and Andrew Roy Morris (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed

voluminous papers, including a document styled as an ex parte petition for writs (“complaint”) which

has been construed as a complaint to seek to undo state court orders and proceedings by reference to the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. According to the complaint,

Allen Brumaugh purports to pursue claims for his two minor children (“minor children”) identified only

by initials. The complaint’s caption lists numerous California courts, agencies and officials along with

officials of Calaveras and Amador counties. However, the complaint specifically identifies the

following as “real parties of interest” and whom have been construed as defendants:

1. Calaveras and Amador County Superior Court judges John E. Martin, Richard K.

Specchio, Donald Howard, Susan C. Harlan, David Richmond, James Bosco and

Case 1:06-cv-00225-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 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

27

28 The judicial, prosecutor and remaining defendants will be referred to collectively as “defendants.” 1

2

Douglas V. Mewhinney (collectively “judicial defendants”);

2. Calaveras and Amador County district attorneys, deputy district attorneys and

investigators Todd D. Riebe, Jeffrey Tuttle, Milton Matehak, Lon D. Hamburger and

Ronald Rios and Calaveras County Counsel James C. Jones and Calaveras County

Assistant Counsel David E. Sirias (collectively “prosecutor defendants”); and

3. Calaveras and Amador County Sheriffs Dennis Downden and Michael Prizmich,

Calaveras and Amador County court clerks Mary Beth Todd and Hugh Swift along with

Kathleen Morris (collectively “remaining defendants”).1

The complaint refers to sections of the ADA and alleges that plaintiffs and the minor children

have learning disabilities. The gist of the complaint is to “call into question the judgments, orders and

processes rendered” in state court proceedings. The complaint references state criminal, child support

and tax collection actions apparently brought against plaintiffs. The complaint asks this Court to

intervene in the state proceedings.

The magistrate judge issued March 6, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this action

without prejudice on grounds: (1) this Court lacks jurisdiction over the complaint’s claims; (2) the

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (3) an attempt at amendment is

unwarranted based on jurisdictional defects, available immunities and defenses, and the complaint’s

deficiencies; and (4) the complaint lacks good faith and exhibits plaintiffs’ intent to vex defendants. The

magistrate judge further recommended to direct this Court’s clerk to return to plaintiffs the voluminous

exhibits filed with their complaint to avoid overburdening this Court’s record. On March 16, 2006,

plaintiffs filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, this Court:

Case 1:06-cv-00225-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 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

27

28

3

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s March 6, 2006 findings and recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this entire action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) this Court lacks

jurisdiction over the complaint’s claims; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted; (3) an attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on

jurisdictional defects, available immunities and defenses, and the complaint’s

deficiencies; and (4) the complaint lacks good faith and exhibits plaintiffs’ intent to vex

defendants; and

3. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to return to plaintiffs the voluminous exhibits filed with

their complaint and to close this action.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00225-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 3