Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/39008901/BARNETT-v-DUNN-EASTERN-DIST-CALI-22-OPPOSITION-by-U-S-Election-Assistance-Commission-pdf-22-0
Timestamp: 2017-01-24 19:39:55
Document Index: 534282621

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1973', '§ 2150', '§ 15301', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§ 1973', '§ 5', '§ 1973', 'art 51', '§ 1442', '§ 1367', 'art 2']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 2:10-cv-02216-FCD-DAD Document 22Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 9
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194 Assistant U. S. Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2760 Attorneys for Federal Defendant, the U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PAMELA BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. DAMON JERRELL DUNN, etc., et al., Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-2216 FCD DAD FEDERAL DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOTING RIGHTS ACT THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT Date: October 22, 2010 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: 27, 8th Fl. (DAD)
Federal defendant, the United States Election Assistance Commission, has moved to be dismissed from this largely state-law action. At this writing federal defendant has not received an opposition from plaintiff, who instead has moved to convene a threejudge district court under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Because plaintiff's motion attempts to argue claims that she did not plead, federal defendant treats her motion as a request for leave to amend, and shows here that amendment to allege violations of Section 5 would be futile. Because the complaint poses primarily State law questions not involving a federal interest, the usual result – remand – should occur here. STATEMENT The plaintiff, Pamela Barnett, filed her state-court First Amended Complaint ("Amd. Compl.") on July 12, 2010, alleging that nonfederal defendants committed
FEDERAL DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOTING RIGHTS ACT THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
Case 2:10-cv-02216-FCD-DAD Document 22
Filed 10/08/10 Page 2 of 9
various California Election Code ("CEC") statutory violations and state-law torts such as spoliation. See headings at pages 5 (CEC sections), 12 (spoliation), 18 (CEC sections), 21 (public interest), 27 (fiduciary duty), and 36 (unjust enrichment). The heading at page 24 ("Defendants Bowen and Kelley Acted with Undue Influence in that Defendant Dunn Maliciously Violated CEC § 2150 (a) (10) / (b) with the NVRA / HAVA and related law") refers mainly to two CEC provisions. See Amd. Compl. attached to removal notice filed August 17, 2010. Plaintiff also sued federal defendant, the United States Election Assistance Commission (USEAC), an independent federal agency established by the Help America Vote Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq. She alleged nothing against federal defendant. See Amd. Compl. Federal defendant's motion to dismiss, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, is pending. Plaintiff has noticed for hearing a motion for a three-judge district court under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. The memorandum supporting plaintiff's motion, Clerk's Record ("CR") 11, repeatedly argues that Orange County or the State of California failed to preclear voting changes (some allegedly made to implement the National Voter Registration Act) with the United States Attorney General under Section 5. E.g., CR 11, pages 2, line 21; 3, lines 3, 5 and 19; 4, lines 4 and 24; 5, lines 13-14 and 20; 6, lines 4-6; and 9, lines 4-5. ARGUMENT As federal defendant's dismissal motion shows, a plaintiff suing the federal government in federal court must show federal jurisdiction including an applicable statutory waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and on the merits must show a violation of law by the federal defendant. Although plaintiff has moved to convene a three-judge district court under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, the complaint fails to mention the Voting Rights Act or its Section 5. Because the motion seeks to advance to claims not pled in the complaint, the motion should be read as a request that, if the complaint is dismissed, the dismissal be with leave to amend.
Filed 10/08/10 Page 3 of 9
AMENDING THE COMPLAINT TO SUE UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT BEFORE A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT WOULD BE FUTILE Plaintiff's motion to convene a three-judge district court under Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, can be understood, if at all, as an argument that dismissal of the Amended Complaint, as requested by both the federal defendant and the State of California defendants, should be with leave to amend to state a Section 5 claim. The current amended complaint mentions nothing about the Voting Rights Act, nothing about the Act's Section 5, and nothing about a Section 5 action in a three-judge district court. Accordingly, only in the context of a request for leave to amend the complaint would the three-judge district court argument become relevant. Leave to amend a pleading is discretionary under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). It is given "when justice so requires." Id. "In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as . . . futility of amendment, . . . – the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'" Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, amending the complaint to allege that plaintiff is entitled to a three-judge district court under Voting Rights Act Section 5(a), 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a), would be futile. Section 5 requires that Section 5-covered jurisdictions obtain preclearance of their proposed election changes through the U.S. Department of Justice. Section 5 gives rise to three types of court claims. Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 561 (1969). They are a State's declaratory judgment action; a U.S. Attorney General's action; and an individual's action claiming "that a state requirement is covered by § 5, but has not been subjected to the required federal scrutiny." Id. For several reasons, the claim argued in plaintiff's motion lacks jurisdiction and amendment to plead it would be futile. A. The Pertinent Jurisdictions Are Not Covered under Section 5
A Section 5 cause of action can exist only for a State or locality that is covered under Section 5. That is, it must be "a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 1973b(a) of this title based upon determinations made
Filed 10/08/10 Page 4 of 9
under the first sentence of section 1973b(b) of this title are in effect." 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a). Section 5 does not cover the County whose action plaintiff challenges. The list of covered jurisdictions is found at 28 C.F.R. Part 51 Appendix. Orange County is not on this list and is not covered by Section 5. Likewise, the State of California is covered only for voting changes that impact Kings, Merced, Monterey, or Yuba Counties, the only covered jurisdictions in California. Since the facts raised in this case involve Orange County and Mr. Dunn's contested residency in Orange County, Section 5 does not apply, and amending the complaint to assert a Section 5 claim would be futile. B. Section 5 Does Not Provide a Sovereign Immunity Waiver to Sue a Federal Agency
Next, even were plaintiff to complain against a Section 5 covered jurisdiction, such as South Carolina in Reaves v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F. Supp. 2d 510 (D.D.C. 2005), there is no subject matter jurisdiction of a suit against federal defendant under Section 5 because, as shown in federal defendant's dismissal motion, there is no showing of a waiver of federal sovereign immunity. Plaintiff has the burden of naming an applicable sovereign immunity waiver. See Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643, 645 (1962). She has not carried that burden. C. Federal Section 5 Decisions Are Not Judicially Reviewable
Next, to the extent that plaintiff's Section 5 motion might suggest a challenge to any federal government decision under Section 5, review of such decisions is beyond the federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction. Federal government action or inaction under Section 5 is "discretionary and unreviewable." E.g., Reaves, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 514. D. Plaintiff Lacks Article III Standing to Sue the Federal Government under Section 5
Finally, plaintiff lacks Article III standing to sue the federal government under Section 5. To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must plead three elements: (1) "injury in fact," (2) a "causal connection" between the injury and the challenged act,
Filed 10/08/10 Page 5 of 9
and (3) that the injury "likely" would be "redressed by a favorable decision." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (citations and internal quotations omitted). "The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements." Id. at 561. In the standing context, the Supreme Court "presume[s] that federal courts lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record." DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006) (quoting Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316 (1991)). The first element, "injury in fact," means an "invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal quotations and citations omitted). That injury "must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way." Id. at 560 n.1. It is difficult to understand why a particular candidate's presence on the ballot would affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Next, plaintiff must show she meets the second element of Article III standing: that her injury is "fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct." DaimlerChrysler, 547 U.S. at 333 (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)). Neither the complaint nor the three-judge district court motion identifies any unlawful conduct by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Nor does it show that the complained-of acceptance by local election authorities of Mr. Dunn as a resident is fairly traceable to the USEAC's actions. Without a "causal connection" from the federal defendant's actions to the alleged injury, the plaintiff lacks this necessary standing element. Finally, plaintiff fails to establish redressability – that the requested relief against federal defendant will correct the alleged violation. Despite plaintiff's reference to EAC's so-called "agents in each state responsible for conducting elections," CR 11 at 7, lines 78, federal defendant has no role in the conduct or the administration of local elections in California. Only local jurisdictions or the State are responsible for submitting voting changes under Section 5.
Filed 10/08/10 Page 6 of 9
In Reaves, several individual citizens sued federal defendants, among others, over the failure by local officials to submit a voting change for preclearance under Section 5. In dismissing the claim against the federal officials, the Court explained that "[i]n this case, it is not the allegedly unlawful conduct of the federal defendants but that of the State of South Carolina that allegedly caused injury to plaintiffs." This is because, under Section 5, "it is the responsibility of the 'state or subdivision' to obtain preclearance for any change to voting procedures." Reaves, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 515. Likewise, here the alleged conduct – the acceptance of Mr. Dunn as a resident eligible to run for office – allegedly was by Orange County or State of California actors, not the federal government. Any relief against the USEAC would not redress the alleged injury. Because "[t]his Court could grant no relief vis a vis the federal defendants that would redress plaintiffs' alleged injury," "no cognizable case or controversy exists with respect to those defendants." Id. Because plaintiff has failed to establish injury in fact, causation and redressability, the Section 5 contention in plaintiff's motion, if pled, would fail for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, any amendment of the Amended Complaint to allege the contentions in plaintiff's motion to convene a three-judge district court would be futile under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and Foman. To the extent that plaintiff's motion seeks leave to amend, leave to amend should be denied. II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO RETAIN THE ACTION, IT SHOULD REMAND TO THE STATE COURT After addressing the federal and State of California defendants' dismissal motions, the Court will need to decide whether to entertain the remainder of the suit here or to remand it to the Superior Court, Sacramento County. Two Ninth Circuit panel decisions contradict each other on whether this Court can invoke another ground of subject matter jurisdiction of the action after dismissing a federal defendant that removed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1442:
Filed 10/08/10 Page 7 of 9
1. One Ninth Circuit decision holds that because this is a Section 1442 removal premised on the presence of a federal defendant, the Court lacks any jurisdiction once the federal defendant is dismissed. See Nebraska v. Bentson, 146 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming remand after 1442 removal and dismissal of the federal agency because the dismissal "destroyed the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case, as the presence of a federal agency was what gave rise to its initial removability"). 2. The other Ninth Circuit decision holds that a "federal court does have the power to hear claims that would not be independently removable even after the basis for removal jurisdiction is dropped from the proceedings." Watkins v. Grover, 508 F.2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1974) (reversing dismissal of action premised on dismissal of federal defendants who had removed under 1442, and instructing district court to decide remand as discretionary question) (citing, inter alia, Murphy v. Kodz, 351 F.2d 163, 167 (9th Cir. 1965)). If Nebraska is correct, then the Court has no discretion and must remand the action upon dismissing the federal defendant. If Watkins is correct, then upon dismissing the federal defendant the Court must exercise discretion whether to entertain the suit or to remand it. If the question is discretionary, the Court should exercise its discretion in favor of remand. In the context of a section 1442(a)(1) removal of a state-law complaint, the D.C. Circuit in District of Columbia v. MSPB, 762 F.2d 129 (D.C. Cir. 1985) observes that "[i]n this context, federal courts in this circuit and elsewhere regularly remand cases removed under section 1442(a)(1) once the federal party is eliminated." 762 F.2d at 133. The instant complaint is based primarily on state law. See the recitation in the Statement, above. Also, amendment to plead Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would be futile. See argument I above. Even though the Court could exercise its discretion (if the discretion exists) to retain this state-law complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction), see District of Columbia, 762 F.2d at 132-33, there is no reason to do so in this action. The complaint, to the extent it might have any colorable merit, "implicates complex local law questions," 762 F.2d at 133, that a state court is at
Filed 10/08/10 Page 8 of 9
least as qualified as this Court to answer. Accordingly, if any claim remains after decision of the dismissal motions and dismissal of federal defendant, it should be remanded. CONCLUSION As shown in federal defendant's dismissal motion and above, subject matter jurisdiction to sue federal defendant is lacking. Moreover, plaintiff's three-judge district court motion facially shows that amending the complaint to sue anyone under Section 5 would be futile. The complaint accordingly must be dismissed without leave to amend as against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Also, a granting of the dismissals requested by the State of California defendants should be without leave to amend. Because the complaint involves primarily state-law interests, any claims against nonfederal defendants that might remain after the hearing of the pending motions should be remanded to the Superior Court, Sacramento County. Dated: October 8, 2010 By: BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney /s/ Y Himel YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL Assistant U. S. Attorney
Filed 10/08/10 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL The undersigned hereby certifies that she is an employee in the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California and is a person of such age and discretion to be competent to serve papers. That on October 8, 2010, she served a copy of: FEDERAL DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOTING RIGHTS ACT THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT by placing said copy in an envelope addressed to the persons hereinafter named, at the places and addresses shown below, which are the last known addresses, and mailing said envelope and contents in the U.S. Mail in Sacramento, California. Addressees: Ms. Pamela Barnett 2541 Warrego Way Sacramento, CA 95826 Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel Wendy J. Phillips, Senior Deputy 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd, Ste. 407 P.O. Box 1379 Santa Ana, CA 93702-1379
/s/ Janet Bain JANET BAIN
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 22 - OPPOSITION by U.S. Election Assistance Commission - pdf.22.0 by Jack RyanEmbedDownloadDescription10/08/2010	22 OPPOSITION by U.S. Election Assistance Commission to 11 MOTION for a Three Judge Panel. (Himel, Yoshinori) (Entered: 10/08/2010)10/08/2010	22 OPPOSITION by U.S. Election Assistance Commission to 11 MOTION for a Three Judge Panel. (Himel, Yoshinori) (Entered: 10/08/2010)Interests: Types, Research, LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedBARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 42 - JUDGMENT dated *09/06/11* - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.42.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST CALI) - 6 - Amended Notice of Hearing for Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.6.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 18 - OPPOSITION by Debra Bowen, Edmund G. Brown, Jr - pdf.18.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (E.D. California) - 24 - REPLY by Debra Bowen, Edmund G. Brown, Jr - pdf.24.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al.(EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 8 - Plaintiff Response to EAC Request 36530934by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 16 - STATEMENT of NON-OPPOSITION - pdf.16.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 3.1 - Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.3.1by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 35 - OBJECTIONS to 34[RECAP] FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.35.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37.1 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.37.1by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 10 - JOINDER by Damon Jerrell Dunn - caed-03304420486.10.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (EASTERN DIST CALI) - 2 - CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED - caed-03304376532.2.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 9 - MOTION to DISMISS by U.S. Election Assistance Commission. - caed-03304401190.9.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 15 - AMENDED NOTICE of 12 Cross-Motion for Three Judge Panel -pdf.15.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 19 - EMORANDUM by Neal Kelley in Opposition - pdf.19.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (E.D. California) - 23 - OPPOSITION by plaintiff Pamela Barnett - pdf.23.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al. (E.D. CA) - 34 - FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.34.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN, et al (E.D. CALIFORNIA - 27 - JOINDER by Damon Jerrell Dunn - pdf.27.0by Jack RyanBarnett v. Dunn - Order Denying Reconsideration - Assignment of Judgeby GeorgetownJDBARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 30 - MOTION for reconsideration of order to replace judge - pdf.30.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST CALI) - 3.2 - Request for Judicial Notice - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.3.2by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.37.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 17 - STATEMENT of Non-Opposition - pdf.17.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 43.0 - MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 41 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and 42 Judgment by Pamela Barnett - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.43.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 43.1 - Attachments: # 1, Declaration - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.43.1by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 18.1 - Attachments: # 1 Request for Judicial Notice - pdf.18.1by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 12 - CROSS-MOTION for Three Judge Panel - pdf.12.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 3 - MOTION to DISMISS - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.3.0by Jack RyanBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 11 - CROSS-MOTION/Memorandum of Law for a Three Judge Panel - caed-03304429225.11.0by Jack RyanSimilar to BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 22 - OPPOSITION by U.S. Election Assistance Commission - pdf.22.0BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 42 - JUDGMENT dated *09/06/11* - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.42.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST CALI) - 6 - Amended Notice of Hearing for Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.6.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 18 - OPPOSITION by Debra Bowen, Edmund G. Brown, Jr - pdf.18.0BARNETT v DUNN, et al. (E.D. California) - 24 - REPLY by Debra Bowen, Edmund G. Brown, Jr - pdf.24.0BARNETT v DUNN, et al.(EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 8 - Plaintiff Response to EAC Request 36530934BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 16 - STATEMENT of NON-OPPOSITION - pdf.16.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 3.1 - Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.3.1BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 35 - OBJECTIONS to 34[RECAP] FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.35.0BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37.1 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. (AttachmentsBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 10 - JOINDER by Damon Jerrell Dunn - caed-03304420486.10.0BARNETT v DUNN, et al. (EASTERN DIST CALI) - 2 - CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED - caed-03304376532.2.0BARNETT v DUNN, et al. (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 9 - MOTION to DISMISS by U.S. Election Assistance Commission. - caed-03304401190.9.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 15 - AMENDED NOTICE of 12 Cross-Motion for Three Judge Panel -pdf.15.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 19 - EMORANDUM by Neal Kelley in Opposition - pdf.19.0BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. California) - 23 - OPPOSITION by plaintiff Pamela Barnett - pdf.23.0BARNETT v DUNN, et al. (E.D. CA) - 34 - FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.34.0BARNETT v DUNN, et al (E.D. CALIFORNIA - 27 - JOINDER by Damon Jerrell Dunn - pdf.27.0Barnett v. Dunn - Order Denying Reconsideration - Assignment of JudgeBARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 30 - MOTION for reconsideration of order to replace judge - pdf.30.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST CALI) - 3.2 - Request for Judicial Notice - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.3.2BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 37 - REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Pamela Barnett. - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.37.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 17 - STATEMENT of Non-Opposition - pdf.17.0BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 43.0 - MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 41 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations and 42 Judgment by Pamela Barnett - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.43.0BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 43.1 - AttachmentsBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 18.1 - AttachmentsBARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 12 - CROSS-MOTION for Three Judge Panel - pdf.12.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 3 - MOTION to DISMISS - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.3.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 11 - CROSS-MOTION/Memorandum of Law for a Three Judge Panel - caed-03304429225.11.0BARNETT v DUNN, et al., (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 1 - NOTICE of REMOVAL - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.1.0BARNETT v DUNN (E.D. CA) - 41 - ORDER ADOPTING 34 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full - Gov.uscourts.caed.212414.41.0BARNETT v DUNN (EASTERN DIST. CALI) - 22 - OPPOSITION by U.S. Election Assistance Commission - pdf.22.0