Howard Herships 

P.O. Box 1501 

2 Cannichael, Ca 95609-150 I 

3 4159335190 

4 Plaintiff In Pro Se 

5 

6 

7 

8 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAL 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

V1 J 7 

"'1~ 19 

20 

HOWARD HERSHIPS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA 

JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, 

DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 

JEAN SHIOMOTO AND THE 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT, 

Defendants. 

CV17 4 

No. Civil No. --------+-

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO TITLE 42 U.S. . 

§ 1983 SEEKING A PRELIMAR 

INJUNCTION AND DECLARA ORY 

JUDGMENT PURSUANT TOT LE 

28 U.S.C. § § 2201 & 2202, AND RO 

UNDER RULES 57 AND 65 FED RAL 

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDU AND 

DAMAGES AGAINST DEFEND NT 

DIRECTOR OF DEPRA TMENT OF 

MOTOR VEHICLES JEAN SHI MOTO 

21 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

22 1. The named plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and th Fourteenth 

23 Amendment to the United States Constitution as all of defendants acts were done un er color of 

24 State Law as plaintiff seeks declaratory relief which is unavailable in state court to e force 

25 Federal Law. 

26 2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C. § 1331, because this action arises under 

27 the Constitution and Laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a) (3), because 

28 it seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of State Law, of rights, privileges, and immunities 

Civi Rights Complaint Seeking a Preliminary Injunction and TRO Page 1 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 20
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 

I 

secured to the named p1aintiffby the Constitution and Laws of the United States. l 

3. This Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive reliefpursuan, to Title 28 

I 

U.S.C. § § 2201 & 2202 and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedu*. 

4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a) (2) & (b) (1) as these ac1

1

ions of 

defendant Director of Department of Motor Vehicles is by state wide application wi hin the 

meaning of subsections (a) (2) and that Defendant Director of California Judicial C 1

uncil office is 

within this Court's Judicial District. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

5. This law suit is brought in connection with the notice given by the United !States 

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division "Dear Colleague" letter dated March 1~, 2016, sent 

to the California Judicial Council and which was requested that the letter be forwar1 to every 

judge in your jurisdiction which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 Pages 1-9. I 

6. The Judicial Council of California is the rule-making arm of the Califo 

system. The Judicial Council receives it jurisdiction under the California Constituti nand under 

the leadership of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California Defendant T i CantilSakauye. 

7. The Judicial Council is responsible for "ensuring the consistent, independ nt, impartial, 

and accessible administration of justice." It was created by an amendment to article I of 

the California Constitution in 1926. 

8. California Judicial Council position on imposing exorbitant penalty asses ments of 

thousands of dollars on traffic court defendants without holding an ability to pay he 'ng "is not 

constitutionally infirm", see Exhibit 1 pages 2-3 California Judicial Benchguide § 

9. Defendant Director of the California Judicial Council Tani Cantil-Sakauy 

is being sued in her official capacity as her capacity is to insure that the Supremacy lause of the 

United States Constitution is applied in all State Court proceedings. 

10. Traffic Courts in California routinely impose exorbitant penalty assessm~nts/fines and 

fees on all traffic court cased over and above the statutory fines for imposed to public the public 

safety, see Exhibit 9 pages 57-62 Codified as California Vehicle Code§ 42008.8 (a~ (b). 

2 I 

I 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 20
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 

11. These penalty assessments and fines/fees are done for one purpose and o e purpose 

only to fund the day to day operations of the Courts in California as the Report ofth California 

Legislative Analyst Office report issued in January 2016 shows that annual revenue for the fiscal 

i 

year 2013-214 the total revenue for the Court's share was 856.8 Million dollars seeiExhibit 4 at 

1,11 page 31. i 

12. In fact the California Court systems total revenue since 2009-2014 the to~l revenue 

collected for court operations were 3 billion 429 million dollars from Traffic Court Jenalty 

Assessments and fines/fees alone, see Exhibits 4 & 5. 

13. California Judicial Council's Judges Benchguide's asserts policy and p~actices, 

which are legally unsupportable and stands in stark contrast to clearly established U9ited States 

I 

Supreme Court Law holding it "is not constitutionally infirm" to impose a penal1 assessment 

were the defendant has not ability to pay the fine. See Exhibit 1 California Judgef Benchguide 

§ 83.16 revised 2014 at page 1-2. 

14. In fact the Defendant Director of the California Judicial Council Tani C til-Sakauye 

view of traffic court trials in her written opinion in People vs. Goldsmith 59 Cal 4th 58 holding 

that a for-profit third party who has a contract with various municipalities can submit a computer 

printout of traffic violations and the documents are not subjected to cross examinatio at all by 

the party that generated them they are taken as correct, which violates the clearly est lished law 

in Bullcoming vs. New Mexico. 

15. The United States Dept of Justice, Civil Rights Division "Dear Colleague' letter of 

March 14,2016, points out specifically "[A]dditional due process concerns arise w en those 

designees have a direct pecuniary interest in the management of the case or the utcome of 

a case" and the California Court decision does not address that the third party ~ r-profit 

red light camera firm must generate as much money for the local municipality t pay the 

$12,500.00 per month rental of the cameras and equipment. I, 

16. The California Supreme Court decision in People vs. Goldsmith which held that 

the federal constitutional provisions do not apply to traffic court cases and was o Iy done to 

maintain the revenue stream from the red light cameras which amounts to hund eds of 

3 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 20
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

million dollars of revenue going to the Court operations. 

16. These practices of the California Judicial Council and the California Court system 

which plaintiff seeks to prevent those agents of the State of California from violating federal law i 

and the Supremacy Clause since the State of California lacks the power to grant its arents 

authority to act in violation of clearly established United States Supreme Court law.

1 

17. This is also the position of the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights 

Division in their "Dear Colleague" letter addressing these very issues with regarding the 

suspension of drivers' licenses without providing an ability pay hearing and permitti g a third 

party for profit firm from using the California Court to collect fines without allowin for that 

party to testify, see Exhibit 2 at pages 8-9. 

18. Defendants State of California in 2015 recognized these problems with i posing 

penalty assessments/fines and fees to over 4.2 million licensed drivers who had their drivers 

licenses suspended all done without providing an ability to pay hearing and pasted S 405, see 

Exhibit 9 pages 57-62. 

19. SB 405 admitted that the penalty assessments fines and fees were not for he 

protection of the public as it codified California Vehicle Code section 42008.8 (a) ( ) and 

provided to allow those drivers' licenses to be reinstated if the traffic court defendan would apply 

18 for an ability to pay hearing the fines imposed could be reduced by up to 80% over d above the 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

statutory penalty to protect the public for the traffic court violations and pasted SB 4 

reduces the penalty, see Exhibit 9 at page 61. 

20. However, SB 405 only provided for relief from California Unconstitutio al acts for 

traffic court defendants who had received a traffic court ticket between the years of 012 until 

December 31, 2013, all other traffic court defendants the reduction of the ability pay hearing does 

not apply, See Exhibit 11 letter to plaintiff from Defendant Director of Motor Vehiclfs Jean 

Shiomoto sued herein her official capacity. I 

21. Plaintiff herein at the trial in Traffic Court objected to having a for-profit 1firm 

submitted a computer generated printout without the ability to cross-examine the op rator of the 

computer form being submitted as evidence under the United States Supreme Court ecision in 

4 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 4 of 20
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

I 

I 

Bullcoming vs .. New Mexico and the trial court commission denied said request hJlding that I 

Traffic Court is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of the evidence see Exhibit 8 page 56 

and compare position of the United States Justice Dept. Civil Rights Division Dear ~olleague 

I 

Letter Exhibit 2 at page 1 0. / 

22. These practices of the California Court system are done for one reason ~d one reason 

I 

only to generate revenue for the day to day court operations of the Courts, which viflate Due 

Process of Law, the United States Justice Department called said practices the "cri~inalization 

of poverty" as "these practices are geared not toward public safety, but rather ]toward 

I 

raising revenue, they can cast doubt on the impartiality of the tribunal and er 1de trust 

between local government and their constituents". See Exhibit 3 at page 13. 

23. In fact a retired Court Commissioner expressed these very same commit in an article 

in the Fresno Bee and that he was under pressure to impose as much penalties as all wed under 

State Law. See 7 at pages 54-55. 

24. The Conference of State Court Administrators 2011-2012 policy paper olds that that 

15 "Courts Are Not Revenue Centers" and asserts the principles under Ward v. Villa of 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972), that the a judicial officer cannot have any direct/'ndirect 

pecuniary interest in the outcome of the judicial proceedings and according to mon y-making 

scheme in California is to impose exorbitant penalty assessments, fines and fees on ach traffic 

court case to enhance the California Court cash flow, see Exhibit 6 pages 38 -53 at 1 and 

compare Exhibit 3 U.S. Dept of Justice investigation and Lawsuits. 

25. Defendant California Director of Motor Vehicles Jean Shiomoto in her fficial 

capacity automatically suspends traffic court defendants 'drivers' licenses when the exorbitant 

penalty assessments, fines and fees are imposed and not paid. The Director does no1 allow for a 

hearing on the ability to pay and the suspension is for life or until the exorbitant pe alties which 

amounts to thousands of dollars. 

26. Defendant California Director of Motor Vehicles Jean Shiomoto in her dfficial 

capacity as director also takes no steps to inform traffic court defendants whose dri ers' licenses 

have been suspended for failure to pay the exorbitant penalty assessments and fines fees without 

5 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 5 of 20
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 

being provide an ability pay hearing. See Exhibit 11 at page 64. 

27. What is equally disturbing here is that the California Department of Mot r Vehicles 

! 

was sued in State Court over the very same issue suspension of drivers licenses witijout holding a 

I 

hearing and the State of California had to pay some 5.6 million dollars in a class ac ·on lawsuit 

with the class size of 573 California Licensed drivers and here the number of driver licenses 

which have been suspended without providing an ability to pay hearing is some 5 illion drivers. 

28. Defendant Superior Court of California County of Sacramento on July 8 2015, set a 

court hearing on the exorbitant penalty assessment and fine before Judge Rockwell rd plaintiff 

herein objected and requested an ability to pay hearing as plaintiff herein was on Mfd-Cal and 

under California Gov. Code 68632 come under a waiver of fees provision. / 

29. Plaintiff at the hearing held on July 8, 2015 requested a hearing on the apility to pay I 

before Defendant Superior Court of Sacramento Judge Rockwell held that because jhis was a 

traffic court case the Federal Constitutional right to an ability to pay does not apply, in traffic 

court cases in California and ordered the debt transferred to GC Services, see Exhirit 12 at page 

75. 

30. Director of the California Judicial Council Defendant Tani Cantil-Saka ye in response 

to the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division's "Dear Colleague" letter fMarch 14, 

2016 set a hearing for an amendment to California Rules of Court, Rule 4.355 on ecember 16, 

2016, which provides for the traffic court to inform all current pending cases in wh ch a traffic 

court defendants has pending to be informed that they have a right to an ability to p y hearing as 

the rule is effective on Jan. 1, 2017. 

31. Director of the California Judicial Council Defendant Tani Cantil-Saka ye adoption of 

the new rule never provided for notification to the some 5 million California licens d drivers who 

had their drivers suspended without providing said hearing. 

32. The Defendant Sacramento County Superior Court in addressing the ne adoption of 

Rule 4.355 in holding a ability to pay hearing on traffic court Exorbitant penalty as~essment fines I 

& fees holds that the Sacramento County Superior Court has no jurisdiction to hol4 an ability to 

pay hearing on all cases which have been assigned to a debt collector, see Exhibit h. at pages 70-

6 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 6 of 20
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

&72. 

33. Defendant State of California lacks the power to grant to its agents' authprity to act in 

violation of clearly established United States Supreme Court mandates by suspending plaintiffs 

drivers' license without first holding a hearing on the ability to pay. This is not onl~ plaintiffs 

contention herein but is that also of the United States Justice Department, Civil Rig~ts Division 

"Dear Colleague" letter of March 14,2016. 

34. Defendant State of California also by enacting SB 405 which codifies th right to have 

8 a reduction of the penalty assessments by up to 80% ifthe traffic court defendant i orne is 

9 within the amounts specified under California Gov. Code§ 68632, (as plaintiff is), ut that statute 

10 only effects traffic court defendants from 2012 until December 31, 2013, which ac 

11 denial of Equal Protection of Law by defendants. 

12 3 5. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against defendants pursuant to Title 

13 1983 cause of action seeking Injunctive relief as declaratory relief is not available i state court 

14 system as there are three actions currently pending seeking declaratory relief over t e illegal 

15 suspension of drivers licenses by the State Department of Motor Vehicles in three 

16 for over one year with the issue involved relates to the imposition of exorbitant pe 

17 assessments/fines & fees imposed as a source of revenue for the California Court s stem. 

18 3 6. Plaintiff cannot receive a fair and impartial judicial officer determinati+ for 

19 declaratory relief in Superior Court of California in that every judge who hears the 6ase has a 

20 direct pecuniary interest in the case as the Court debt imposed against traffic court efendants as 

21 the California Court system received 3.9 billion dollars over the last 4 years in rev nue for the 

22 day to day of Court operations which is 2/3rds of the total amount collected. 

23 37. Plaintiff applied on January 4, 2017 for ability to pay hearing pursuant ule 4.335 

24 with defendant Sacramento County Superior Court and that Court refused to permi the filing of 

25 said motion asserting that the Rules of Court do not apply to plaintiffs traffic co case because 

26 

27 

28 

(1) the debt is no longer with the Sacramento County Revenue and Recovery and (f) The Court 

has already ruled that "[T]here is no option for you to return to court and discuss tiis case." See 

Exhibit 12 page 74. 

7 I 

I 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 7 of 20
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

38. Plaintiff seeks that this Court resolve the legal relationship between Defe dants' 

refusal to hold a hearing on the ability to pay these exorbitant penalty assessments fi es & fees, 

on traffic court cases, which practices are geared toward raising revenue for the courts and not 

toward addressing public safety, see Exhibit 3 page 13. ! 

39. Defendants' suspension of plaintiff's driver's license was not because of~ublic safety 

I 

but was because plaintiff could not afford to pay the $1,465.00 penalty assessment ~ter and 

above the statutory penalty for the infraction, see Exhibit 9 at page 60 and codified l' California 

Vehicle Code§ 42008.8 (b). I 

40. Plaintiff seeks to prevent defendants from violating clearly establish Uni,ed States 

Supreme Court decisions in Beardon v. Georgia 461 U.S. 660, at 671 (1983), whic~ prohibits 

"punishing a person for his poverty" which is prohibited under the Due Process Cla4se of the 141

h 

Amendment. I 

41. The United States Supreme Court in a long line of cases beginning with friffin v. 

Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, at 16, ( 1956) made clear that conditioning access or the outco~e in the 

justice system solely on a persons' ability to pay violates the Fourteenth Amendmen . 

42. Defendants state actors here have and continue violate these principles i holding that 

they can suspend a plaintiffs drivers' license without first "inquiring into the reaso s for the 

failure to pay. 

19 43 Defendant California Judicial Council position is that the State Penal Co § 1202.4 (c) 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

which permits California under State Law to impose the maximum penalty under pe alty 

assessments/fines and fees and no ability to pay hearing is required, [S]uch a mand te is not 

constitutionally infirm", see Judicial Counsel of California publication Judges Bene guides 83 

revised 2014 § 83 .16. This holding is contrary to a myriad of established United Sta es Supreme 

Court decisions dating back to 1983. 

44. Defendants have stepped outside the Eleventh Amendment's immunity, and may be 

sued in federal court seeking an injunction to prohibit serious violations offederalllw. 

45. Plaintiff action is one to remedy a violation of traffic court judgment in hich 

defendants refused and continue to refuse to provide an ability pay hearing on thee .orbitant 

8 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 8 of 20
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

··~ 

I 

penalty assessments/fines and fees, which are not geared toward protection of the putlic, but arc 

actually geared toward funding the day to day operation of the Courts in billions of ctpllars. 

I 

46. Defendants imposition of the penalty assessments fines and fees over andiabove I 

statutory fine imposed for public safety, (in plaintiff case $200.00), and then impose![ orne 

$1,465.00, in penalty assessments/fines and fees, which is geared to pay for day to d y court i 

operation violates Due Process of law, as the judicial officer has a clear direct/indire 1 t pecuniary 

interest in the outcome of every case and when added up on annual basis over the la t 4 years 

amount to some 3.9 billion dollars or approximately 1 billion dollars annually. 

9 47. All Defendants have a legal obligation to notify all California Licensed 'vers who 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

have had their drivers license suspended for none payment of traffic court imposed j dgments 

notice that they have a right to have a hearing on the ability to pay this is request as t should be 

public policy imposed upon defendants all of them that defendants acts were in viol[. tion of 

Federal Law. 

48. Defendant director of the Judicial Council policies and practices of impo e exorbitant 

penalty assessments fines and fees for the sole purpose for funding the court which /3 of these 

fines are earmarked for day to day court operations violates Due Process of law as i places the 

judicial office responsibilities to maintain the high level of contribution from these xorbitant 

penalty assessments fines and fees for the revenue of the courts in California. See onference of 

State Court Administrators 2011-2012 Policy Paper "Courts Are Not Revenue Cent rs" Exhibit 6 

at page 51. 

21 49. California Courts acts herein of suspending of drivers licenses without ability to 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

pay hearing or even making a finding of a willful violation of failure to is actually t e California 

Court system is nothing more than "Criminalization of poverty" that is not of the tr ffic court 

defendant's making as by do so defendants are adjudged guilty of a criminal violat'on under 

California Vehicle Code § 42008 

50. There is no declaratory relief in State Court is unavailable as there has ~een three state 

Court actions filed as well as the United States Justice Department Civil Rights Di~ision "Dear 

Colleague" letter and an extensive letter writing campaign by the ACLU against th illegal 

9 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 9 of 20
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 

practices of the California system not providing an ability to pay hearing prior suspe sion of 

traffic court defendants, see Exhibit 2. 

51. As a direct result of the ACLU advocacy Contra Costa County and San Francisco 

i 

County has placed a moratorium on suspension, see Exhibit 13. I 

52. The other two lawsuits have filed by there has been no responsive pleadi4g by the 

State of California to these illegal practice and no further litigation. jl 

53. Protection of civil liberties and civil rights is basic to American political alues and it 

is in the public policy to stop these illegal acts by the California Court system of sus ension of a 

driver's license without an ability to pay hearing and to notify all traffic court defen ants of their 

rights to such a hearing. 

54. Defendants violations of clearly, established United States Supreme Cou 1 

Law even 

after be being put on notice by the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division in 

March of2016, of California Court system of continuing in its untoward ways and efuses to 

permit an ability to pay hearings on suspension of a plaintiffs drivers license. 

55. Defendants acts open yawning breach in the rule of law as defendants re sed to 

permit an ability to pay hearing creates serious violation of Federal Law. 

56. Defendants systematically violated over 4.2 million licensed drivers in C lifornia 

federal constitutional rights and have admitted by both enactment of SB 405 as well reating a 

new Rule of Court requiring that the Traffic Court must notify the traffic court defe ants that 

they have a right to an ability to pay hearing but takes no steps to notify all defendan s who have 

had their drivers licenses suspend of the change in the law. 

I 

57. These systematic breaches of federal constitutional rights by Defendant qirector of the 

California Judicial Council and the Sacramento County Superior Court continue thr ughout the 

traffic court system at every level of the proceedings as can be shown by reporters tr script were 

the Court Commissioner asserted that federal constitutional issues are not permitted o be ruled 

upon in traffic court, see Exhibit 8 page 56. 

58. In fact plaintiff herein addressed these violations on a direct appeal ofri hts from said 

ruling in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in which no opposition was e er filed and 

10 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 10 of 20
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 Defendant Court affirm the traffic Court conviction hold that Supremacy Clause ffthe 

United States Constitution is not permitted to be addressed in California Traffic Couk 

I 

PARTIES I 

I 

I 

59. Plaintiff Howard Herships is a 73 old veteran who lives in Sacramento c4unty and is 

on Med-Cal who requested a hearing on July 8, 2015 on the issue of the ability to pa~ a $1,665.00 

! 

traffic court judgment and Judge Rockwell refused by asserting that federal constitudonal issues 

cannot be contested in traffic court. 

60. Plaintiff then when Defendant Director of the California Judicial Council 'mplemented 

A new Rule of Court, Rule 4.335 to address the United States Justice Department, Cf'il Rights 

Division's objections to California Court systems illegal conduct in imposing suspenrions of 

drivers licenses without the ability to pay hearings in violation of Due Process of La~. See 

Exhibit 2. 1 

61. Defendants newly enacted Rules of Court Rule 4.335 does not address th retroactive 

of the total failure to provide an ability of hearing by the State of California and pro ide notice to 

all traffic court defendants who have had their drivers licenses suspended without a earing. 

62. Plaintiff applied for said hearing on January 4, 2017 and the requested w denied 

because (1) Plaintiffs traffic court judgment had been referred to a collection servic GC 

Services and as such an ability to pay hearing does not apply, (2) The Sacramento C unty 

Superior Court was not jurisdiction to modify the judgment as the Court has already made said 

determination, see Exhibit 12 pages 70, 72 &74. 

63. Defendant Judicial Council's Rule of Court Rule 4.355 in the "Advisory ornmittee 

Comments" (1) the "Court should take into account factors including ..... Med-Cal" see 

Subdivision (b) and (2) "The amount and manner of paying the total fine must be re onable and 

compatible with defendant's financial ability". See Subdivision (c) (4) of Rule 4.33 . 

64. Defendant Director of the Judicial Council duties sets priorities for the j dicial 

branches of the government by requiring the trial courts to comply with the Rules o~Court, 

pursuant to its duty under Title 10 Judicial Administration Rules, Rule 10.1 (2) and/California 

Constitution Article 6 § 6 (d) requires the defendant Judicial Council to "adopt rul s for court 

11 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 11 of 20
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

administration, practice and procedure, and perform other functions prescribed by statuttJ. 

The rules adopted shall not be inconsistent with statute." 

65. Plaintiff contacted California Judicial Council regarding the total failure of the 

Defendant Sacramento County Superior Court to permit the filing of the an ability to ~ay based 

upon plaintiff receiving Med-Cal benefits and the Defendant Sacramento County suJerior Court I 

I 

refusal and the Judicial Council asserted that they have no jurisdiction over the Defe dant 

Superior Court and that they can do anything they want. 

66. Defendant Director of the California Judicial Council lacks the power to ant to its 

agents, (Defendant Sacramento County Superior Court and Director of the Californi . Department 

of Motor Vehicles), authority to violate of Federal Law by suspension of traffic co, defendants 

drivers' licenses without first holding a hearing on the ability to pay. 

67. Defendant Director of the California Judicial Council had been put on no ice of the 

serious violations of Federal Law by the United States Justice Department, Civil Rig ts Divisions 

in March of 2016 and still refuses to addresses California's refusal to inform the tra 1c court 

defendants who have been denied Due Process of Law by California continuing to r instate those 

drivers licenses and provide a hearing on the ability to pay. 

68. Defendant Director of the California Judicial Council sole purpose to co inue in its 

untoward ways are done to maximize the Courts' cash flow in violation of clearly es ablish 

United States Supreme Court Law, as every adjudication by any judicial office has a direct 

pecuniary interest in the outcome of the traffic court case as the California Courts sh e of the 

21 penalty assessments /fines and fees equal 66.66% and amounts to 1 billion dollars ually going 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

directly to the California Court system and funding the day to day operations of the 

69. Defendant Director of the California Judicial Council imposition ofthe pfnalty 

assessments/fines and fees have no relationship to the statutory fine for the traffic c<frrt code 

violations which is for public safety. f 

70. These acts of the Defendant Director of the California Judicial Council v olates every 

traffic court adjudication as the judicial officer making said decision has a direct/ in irect 

pecuniary interest to make a finding of guilty to fund the Court's day to day operati ns in the 

12 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 12 of 20
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 

amount of one billion dollars annually. See Exhibits 4 & 5. 

71. Defendants have no intentions of providing plaintiff herein with an abili to pay 

hearings as they just continue in their untoward ways of collections of exorbitant penalties and 

fines and fees for their day to day operations of the Court. i 

72. Plaintiff's drivers' license was suspended on August 14, 2015 by defend+! Director 

of California Motor Vehicles Jean Shiomoto without any hearing until the total amodnt of 

payment of$1,665.00 is paid or for life, whichever is sooner, sees 10 at page 63. I 

73. Defendants by enacting SB 405 which codified California Vehicle Code 42008.8 (a) 

& (b) have admitted (1) that" driving is a fundamental need of virtually every pe~son". And I 

(2) that "driver's licenses have been suspended, not because they are a danger t public 

safety, but because they could not pay the fines associated with the minor tram tickets and 

other related fees and assessments." 

74. Defendants have violated the Constitution in not only imposing exor*itant I 

penalty assessments, fines & fees on minor traffic code violations without addr ssing and 

providing an ability pay hearing to the defendants prior to suspending drivers icenses, but 

have also violated the Constitutional provisions that the State Court system ca not not have 

a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the outcome of the judgment rendered in the traffic 

court cases as the California's Court system share of the revenue produced by hese 

exorbitant penalty assessments, fines and fees on minor traffic violations amou t to one 

billion dollars annually, which used for the day to day court operations. I 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF I 

75. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-74 above with the s~e force and 

effect as if herein set forth. I 

I 

76. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceab~lity pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty,lor property, 

without due process oflaw," U.S. Const. amend. XIV§ 1. 

77. The Due Process Clause prohibits the State from subjecting individuals 

28 and penalties that fail to comport with the principles of due process of law and fund ental 

13 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 13 of 20
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

fairness. 

78. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that punishing ape son solely 

for his inability to pay, without holding a hearing on the defendant's rights to a heariing on the 

I 

ability to pay, violates principles of due process of law and fundamental fairness. I 

79. The State of California Court system imposing of penalty assessments Jd fines, 

which are done solely to generate revenue for the day to day court operation for bill{ons of dollars 

per year automatically and mandatorily, which requires traffic defendants to pay wi hout any 

ability to pay hearing prior to suspension of plaintiffs drivers license. 

80. Defendant Superior Court of Sacramento County illegal scheme is to tr smit to 

10 defendant Shiomoto a record of plaintiffs willful failure to pay and done without y inquiry into 

11 the reasons for nonpayment, or consideration of whether the plaintiff even had the 

12 atall. 

13 81. Defendant Director of California Judicial Council license for payment s heme 

I 

14 automatically and mandatorily, (without any consideration of plaintiffs ability top y or a 

15 determination if the failure to pay was willful), suspended plaintiff driver's license, which is even 

16 in violation of California Vehicle Code§ 40508 (b). 

17 82. In this regard, all Defendants license-for-pay scheme inevitably resulte in plaintiff 

18 being punished for his inability to pay. 

19 83. Punishing a defendant solely for his inability to pay violates principles f due process 

20 and equal protection of the laws and fundamental fairness. 

21 84. Accordingly, the California's license-for-pay system violates the Due ocess Clause 

22 and the Equal protection Clause of the United States Constitution. 

23 85. Plaintiffs driver's license and its attendant government-sanctioned abi ity to drive 

24 have been clearly established by United States Supreme Court Law that cannot be aken away 

25 without due process of law. 

26 86. Due Process requires that California to conduct an ability to pay hearin at such stage 

27 of the case, including the point at which it proposes to take coercive action to pun'sh nonpayment, 

28 which all defendants have been point on notice ever since March 14, 2016 by the ' Dear 

14 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 14 of 20
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 

Colleague" letter from the United States Department of Justice and the all defendan shave 

decided to continue in their untoward ways. 

87. As described above, Director of the California Judicial Council policy o~license-forpay and automatically and mandatorily without either an ability to pay hearing or ~y requests by 

the defendant Court of why wasn't the judgment paid and then requires Defendant ~hiomoto to 

suspend plaintiffs drivers license all done with absolutely no inquiry to any reasons!. 

88. The purpose of the State of California's license-for -pay is to coerce pa ment so as to 

maximize and generate the most revenue for the Court system for its ongoing opera ions of the 

Court which has amounted to one billion dollars annually. 

89. In the absent of holding any hearing on either the ability to pay or make finding that 

the failure to pay was willful required by State Law before a driver's license can be uspended, to 

wit § 40508 (b) of the Vehicle Code defendant Sacramento County Superior Court as deprived 

plaintiff of drivers license for reasons direct attributable plaintiff poverty. 

90. The high risk of deprivation created by the Defendants' automatic, one-s ze-fits-all 

driver's license suspension system violates Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. 

91. The United States Supreme Court has clearly established the principle th t punishing a 

person solely for his or her poverty, violates the principles of fundamental fairness e bedded in 

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 

92. Defendants acting through defendant Shiomoto to illegally invoke a Iice~se-for, 

payment scheme, which automatically and mandatorily without holding either an abtlity to pay 

hearing or to make an inquiry to a finding if fact that the failure to pay was willful r fusal to pay. 

93. All defendants' acts take coercive action against plaintiff whose poverty akes it 

impossible for him to comply to. 

94. California's scheme inevitably results in enforcing financial obligations in traffic 

court defendants who lack the foreseeable ability to meet them. 

95. All the Defendants knew at all times of the illegal scheme had full knowlf:' dge as some 

5 million drivers licenses were suspended without any hearing on the either the abili y to pay or 

making any inquiry into if the failure to pay was willful. 

15 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 15 of 20
1 96. Defendants acts were willful as all defendants knew at all times that prior t any 

2 suspension of a drivers license requires a hearing and defendants decided to willfully iolate the 

3 Equal Protection Clause of the U. S. Constitution and continue to do so. 

4 97 The United States Supreme Court has held that, when the Courts seek to h e a 

5 direct/indirect financial interest imposing penalty assessments and fees in which the 

6 receives annually 1 billion dollars, "it certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment, d deprives 

7 a defendant in a criminal case of due process of law, to subject his liberty or property to the 

8 judgment of a court the judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary i terest in 

9 reaching a conclusion against him in his case." 

10 98. California's license-for-payment system violates the Due Process Clause 

11 States Constitution because it causes substantial hardship to plaintiff and bears no rat~onal 

12 relationship to any important or legitimate government object. 

13 99. The United States Supreme Court has held that, when government seeks t recoup the 

14 costs of the operation of the state court system from indigent defendants, the Courts ay not take 

15 advantage of their position to utilize charging exorbitant fees and harsh methods of ebt 

16 collection solely because the debt is owed to the government and not a private credit r. 

17 100. California's sole purpose for charging exorbitant penalty assessments a d late fees 

18 are geared not toward addressing public safety, but rather toward raising court reven' e to 

19 subsidize the Court funding, which in itself a violation of Due Process of Law. 

20 101. When a private creditor seeks to enforce a judgment against a debtor vi garnishment 

21 or lien the law provides for procedural and substantive protections for poor debtors 

22 California provides no protection what so ever and California continues in its unto d ways to 

23 fund their cash strap Court system by one billion dollars annually on the back of the traffic court 

24 defendants. 

25 102. When California acting through defendant Shiomoto takes advantage o her position 

26 at the controls of the machinery of government peremptorily strip debtors oftheir d 'ver's 

27 licenses, it denies court debtors procedural and substantive statutory protections tha are mandated 

28 by Due Process of Law and clearly established United States Supreme Court Law. 

16 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 16 of 20
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 

103. Defendant Shiomoto illegal acts of automatic and mandatory suspension raffic Court 

defendant's driver's licenses without providing proper any administrative hearing to el en 

determine the ability to pay violates United States Supreme Court Law, moreover, th9se illegal 

acts continued after the State of California enacted SB 405 acknowledging the ability /to pay must 

be address as such Defendant's Shiomoto acts violates plaintiff's rights to Equal Prot ction of 

Law. 

104. Defendant Shiomoto acts of suspension of Drivers Licenses without pro iding a 

hearing to determining the ability to pay was done willfully, with malice and foretho ght in a 

fraudulent scheme to increase the revenue to the California Court system. 

105. Defendants conduct is actually "criminalization of poverty" by defend ts total 

failure to hold a hearing on the ability to pay prior suspension of a drivers license as y doing so 

defendants makes some 5 million drivers who lost their drivers license guilty of ami demeanor 

pursuant to California Vehicle Code §§ 42003 and 40508 (b) which plaintiff could b criminal 

prosecuted all for the very reason that that the State Court system seeks revenue. 

106. Despite knowledge that California recognized in enacting SB 405 and p oviding for 

an "amnesty program "on the very subject matter of the ability pay all of the defend ts continue 

in their untoward ways in violation of plaintiff's Due Process Rights and the Equal 

the Law. 

1 07. All of Defendants illegal acts show a totally disproportionate penalty 

plaintiff for a minor traffic code violation for having a life time suspension of a driv license for 

failure to pay a $200.00 statutory penalty plus $1,465.00 in penalty assessments pl 

making the total penalty some $1,665.00 all imposed without any ability to pay he 

an administrative hearing vs. a criminal violation for DUI, which is a criminal viol~ion with a 

$3,000.00 penalty and a right to an administrative hearing prior to suspension of a ,rivers license. 

See Exhibit 11 at pages 64-69 . 

i 

108. California's severe and coercive collection policies and practices cons itute 

invidious discrimination and violate the fundamental principle of equal protection fthe laws 

embedded in the United States Constitution. 

17 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 17 of 20
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 

109. California Senator Herzberg has introduced SB 185 on January 25,201 , which does 

not address the California's unconstitutional conduct of imposing exorbitant penalty1 

assessments, 

I 

fines and fees done solely as a means of generating revenue for the California Court~ share in 

amounts of one billion dollars annually. See Exhibit 4 & 5 Legislative Analyst Offide showing 

that California Courts receive 66% of the penalty Assessments, fines and fees totaliJg some 1 

billion dollars annually. See Exhibit 13. I 

110. Defendant Director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles ac violated 

plaintiffs federally protected rights to Due Process of Law as plaintiffhad a right t a hearing 

which comports to Due Process of Law prior to suspension of plaintiffs rights to m intain his 

drivers' license. 

111. Defendant Directors of Motor Vehicles acts were willful, malice and d ne with 

forethought to injure plaintiff as the California Department of motor vehicles has alteady put on 

notice in a prior case that drivers licenses could not suspended without a hearing in prior class 

action which the defendant Dept. of Motor Vehicles end up paying some 5.6 millio dollars. 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court provide the fol owing relief: 

a. Issue a judgment declaring that the defendants" policies, practices, acts d/or 

omissions as described herein are unlawful and violate Plaintiffs rights under the onstitution 

and laws of the United States; 

b. Preliminary and permanently enjoin the defendants, their subordinates, a ents, 

employees, representatives, and all others action or purporting to act in concert wit them or on 

their behalf from issuing or process of orders of driver's licenses suspension for un aid traffic 

Court judgments until such time as defendants provide an ability to pay hearing wh ch complies 

with Due Process of Law; 

c. Preliminarily and permanently issue an injunction ordering defendants to )reinstate 

Plaintiffs drivers license suspended based upon an unpaid traffic court judgment ~d enjoining 

defendants from requiring plaintiff to pay for the reinstatement of plaintiff drivers' 1cense as a 

18 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 18 of 20
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

! 

condition of such reinstatement. I 

d. Order defendants to stop the imposition of penalty assessments and fines an~ fees on 

traffic tickets that are not geared not toward addressing public safety, but rather towak raising 

I 

revenue for the day to day operations of the Court system as it cast doubt on the imp ' iality of 

the tribunal, which creates a "Due Process" violation as the judicial Officer has a dire t/indirect 

pecuniary interest in imposing the assessments/fines and erode trust between local go ernments 

and their constituents; 

e. Order defendant Director of DMV to notify all traffic court defendants that have had 

their drivers licenses suspended without proving an ability pay hearing as is required by federal 

law; I 

f. For actual damages against the defendant Shiomoto as Director ofDMV w ile 

operating under Color of State Law for suspension of plaintiffs drivers license with ut a Due 

Process of Law hearing on the ability to pay subject to proof; 

g. For punitive damages against defendant Shiomoto for her willful violation of while 

operating under color of State Law as the very Department was put on notice in 200 by a civil 

suit which resulted in a settlement of 5.6 million dollars and the Departments contin ed in its 

untoward ways and refuses even after requesting a hearing; 

h. Award plaintiff his litigation costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable 

law; and 

20 i. Grant all such other relief and further relief as this Court may deem necess and/or 

21 appropriate in the interest of justice. 

22 

23 Dated Jan. 10, 2017 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

19 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 19 of 20
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 

VERIFICATION 

I declare as follows: 

I am the plaintiff in the above entitled case and I have read the above complai~t for 

Preliminary Injunction and I know its contents based upon first hand personal knowl~ge and 

they are true and correct. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that all ofthe above is true and correct und theLaws of 

the State of California. 

Dated Jan. 30, 2017 

At San Francisco, Ca 

Howard Herships 

20 

Case 4:17-cv-00473-YGR Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 20 of 20