Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-mc-80064/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-mc-80064-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eva D. Al-Zaghari
Plaintiff
Robert D. Foiles
Defendant
Shirley V. Remmert
Plaintiff
Julia C. Venoya
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA C. VENOYA, SHIRLEY V.

REMMERT, EVA D. Al-ZAGHARI, 

A.H.M., minor child,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERT D.

FOILES,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-80064 WHA

ORDER BARRING FILING

OF PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioners have attempted to file this “habeas corpus” action against San Mateo County

Superior Court Judge Robert D. Foiles. Petitioners Al-Zaghari and Remmert are subject to a

pre-filing review order because of their numerous, repetitious, and meritless filings on previous

occasions (Case No. C 01-2870 MHP Doc. No. 8; Case No. C 05-80241 MHP Doc. No. 3). In

August 2001, Chief Judge Marilyn Patel of this district deemed plaintiff a vexatious litigant and

ordered that she “not file in this or any other court any complaints, pleadings or other papers

related to the matters raised in these actions.” The earlier filings stemmed from other

grievances against the County of San Mateo, the courts of San Mateo County, including in their

capacity as juvenile and family courts, and others whom she believes have caused her problems

with the County and its courts.

Case 3:07-mc-80064-WHA Document 1 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The petition for writ of habeas corpus in this action is a form petition with blank spaces

allowing prisoners to fill in relevant information. The following answer is written in response

to the question, “[f]or what crime were you given this sentence”: “Eva Al-Zaghari’s sevenyear-old son, Ali H. Al Zaghari, has been denied contact with his mother and maternal family

since birth by San Mateo County employees, local and foreign Muslims, and others. Eva AlZaghari is not a Muslim. As a divorced woman, she has kept her son’s last name, until both she

and her son may change their names.” Other spaces were left blank, including those regarding

the “[d]ate and terms of sentence” and with respect to the question “[a]re you now in custody

serving this term.” 

Notwithstanding its incompleteness, the petition clearly deals with issues “related to”

the matters for which petitioners were deemed vexatious by Judge Patel. The instant petition

alleges various wrongs in connection with a child-custody dispute in 1998 and 1999. Judge

Patel dismissed claims related to this child-custody dispute in May 2001 based on lack of

jurisdiction and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity (Case No. C 01-298 MHP Doc. No.

14). Because this petition is substantially related to the claims in the action dismissed by Judge

Patel, the Court declines to issue an order authorizing the filing of the instant petition.

Moreover, from the face of the petition it does not appear that any of petitioners are “in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 28 U.S.C. 2254. Nor have petitioners

alleged that they exhausted their remedies in the state courts, a prerequisite for filing a federal

habeas petition. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 477 (1973). Even if the petition were

to be filed, the petition would have to be dismissed for these reasons.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus SHALL NOT BE FILED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-mc-80064-WHA Document 1 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 2