CA – Lindsay v Bowen – USDC – Docket

U.S. District Court

Eastern District of California – Live System (Sacramento)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-00853-GEB-AC

The Peace and Freedom Party et al v. Bowen

Assigned to: Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Allison Claire

Case in other court:  USCA, 13-15085

Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Date Terminated: 12/11/2012

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 441 Civil Rights: Voting

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Peta Lindsay represented by Alexandra Robert Gordon 

CA. Dept. of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Ave., Ste. 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

415-703-5509

Fax: 415-703-1234

Email: alexandra.robertgordon@doj.ca.gov

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert Edward Barnes 

Barnes Law

22631 Pacific Coast Hwy

Suite 362

Malibu, CA 90265

310-510-6211

Fax: 310-510-6225

Email: robertbarnes@barneslawllp.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Richard Becker represented by Alexandra Robert Gordon 

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert Edward Barnes 

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
The Peace and Freedom Party represented by Alexandra Robert Gordon 

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRobert Edward Barnes 

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Debra Bowen represented by Alexandra Robert Gordon 

(See above for address)

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text
04/03/2012 1 COMPLAINT against Debra Bowen by The Peace and Freedom Party, Richard Becker, Peta Lindsay. Attorney Barnes, Robert Edward added. (Attachments: # 1Cover Sheet)(Barnes, Robert) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
04/03/2012 RECEIPT number #CAE200043378 $350.00 fbo The Peace and Freedom Party et al by Robert Barnes on 4/3/2012. (Matson, R) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
04/03/2012 3 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Debra Bowen* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Robert E. Barnes* *22631 Pacific Coast Highway* *Suite 362* *Malibu, CA 90265*. (Matson, R) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
04/03/2012 4 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 7/23/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 VDRP Form) (Matson, R) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
04/03/2012 5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Debra Bowen served on 4/3/2012, answer due 4/24/2012. (Barnes, Robert) (Entered: 04/03/2012)
04/09/2012 6 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Hearing on 7 Motion for Preliminary Injucion by plaintiffs. (Barnes, Robert) Modified on 4/10/2012 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 04/09/2012)
04/09/2012 7 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 04/24/12 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 3 before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. (Barnes, Robert) Modified on 4/10/2012 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 04/09/2012)
04/10/2012 8 STIPULATION and ORDER 6 to set Briefing Schedule and Oral Argument signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/10/2012. Oral Arguments for plaintiffs’ 7Motion for Preliminary Injunction is CONTINUED to 4/26/2012 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB). Defendant to file their Opposition by 4/18/2012; plaintiffs to file their Reply Brief 4/20/2012. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
04/12/2012 9 STIPULATION re Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint by Debra Bowen. Attorney Gordon, Alexandra Robert added. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Gordon, Alexandra) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
04/18/2012 10 OPPOSITION by Debra Bowen to 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alexandra Robert Gordon, # 2 Exhibits to Declaration, # 3 Proof of Service) (Gordon, Alexandra) Modified on 4/21/2012 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 04/18/2012)
04/20/2012 11 REPLY by Richard Becker, Peta Lindsay, The Peace and Freedom Party re 10 Opposition to Motion. (Barnes, Robert) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
04/25/2012 12 MINUTE ORDER: The Motion for Preliminary Injunction, scheduled for hearing on 4/26/12, is submitted without oral argument. There will not be a hearing on 4/26/12, and no appearance is necessary. re 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Ordered by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/25/12. (Furstenau, S) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
04/26/2012 13 ORDER denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/26/12. (Matson, R) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
05/25/2012 14 MOTION to DISMISS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by Debra Bowen. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proof of Service) (Gordon, Alexandra) Modified on 9/5/2012 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
05/25/2012 15 REQUEST for JUDICIAL NOTICE by Debra Bowen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Gordon, Alexandra) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
07/11/2012 16 MOTION Administrative Relief from Case Management Deadlines by Debra Bowen. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Gordon, Alexandra) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
07/16/2012 17 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/16/12: The parties are Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) in a writing to be filed no later than July 23, 2012, why sanctions should not be imposed against them and/or their counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely status report. Scheduling Conference RESET for 10/1/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
07/20/2012 18 RESPONSE to 17 Order to Show Cause by Debra Bowen. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Gordon, Alexandra) Modified on 7/23/2012 (Manzer, C). (Entered: 07/20/2012)
07/23/2012 19 RESPONSE to ORDER to SHOW CAUSE by Richard Becker, Peta Lindsay, The Peace and Freedom Party. (Barnes, Robert) (Entered: 07/23/2012)
08/10/2012 20 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER changing Hearing date and Briefing Schedule for Motion to Dismiss by Debra Bowen. (Gordon, Alexandra) Modified on 8/14/2012 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 08/10/2012)
08/13/2012 21 OPPOSITION by Richard Becker, Peta Lindsay, The Peace and Freedom Party to 14 MOTION to DISMISS. (Barnes, Robert) Modified docket text on 8/14/2012 (Waggoner, D). (Entered: 08/13/2012)
08/14/2012 22 STIPULATION and ORDER 20 to change hearing and briefing schedule on signed on District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 8/13/2012. Defendant’s 14Motion to Dismiss Hearing is CONTINUED to 9/10/2012 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB). Opposition to Motion shall be due on 8/20/2012 and defendant’s Reply shall be due 9/3/2012. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
08/31/2012 23 REPLY by Debra Bowen in support of 14 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (Gordon, Alexandra) Modified on 9/5/2012 (Marciel, M) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
09/06/2012 24 MINUTE ORDER: The Motion to Dismiss, scheduled for hearingon 9/10/12, is submitted without oral argument. There will not be a hearing on 9/10/12, and no appearance is necessary. re 14 Motion to Dismiss Ordered by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/6/12. (Furstenau, S) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
09/07/2012 25 MOTION for Administrative Relief From Case Management Deadlines by Debra Bowen. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Gordon, Alexandra) Modified on 9/11/2012 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 09/07/2012)
09/17/2012 26 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Richard Becker, Debra Bowen, Peta Lindsay, The Peace and Freedom Party. Attorney Gordon, Alexandra Robert added. (Gordon, Alexandra) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
09/20/2012 27 MINUTE ORDER: The pretrial scheduling conference, currently set for 10/1/12, is rescheduled for 11/26/12, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen days prior to the hearing. Ordered by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/20/12. (Furstenau, S) (Entered: 09/20/2012)
11/08/2012 28 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Debra Bowen. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service) (Gordon, Alexandra) Modified on 11/9/2012 (Michel, G). (Entered: 11/08/2012)
11/15/2012 29 STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/14/2012: All Discovery shall be completed by 7/9/2013. The last hearing date for a motion is 9/9/2013, at 9:00 a.m. The Final Pretrial Conference is set for 11/4/2013 at 11:00 AM, with a JOINT pretrial statement due no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the conference. Trial shall commence at 9:00 AM on 2/11/2014 in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. (Krueger, M) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
11/20/2012 30 ORDER by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.: Due to the appointment of Magistrate Judge *Allison Claire* to the bench of the Eastern District, this action is reassigned from *Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan* for all further proceedings. (Donati, J) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
12/11/2012 31 ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/11/2012 ORDERING for reasons set forth, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim; Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant. CASE CLOSED.(Waggoner, D) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
12/11/2012 32 JUDGMENT dated *12/11/2012* in favor of Defendant pursuant to order signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/11/2012. (Waggoner, D) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
01/10/2013 33 NOTICE of APPEAL by Richard Becker, Peta Lindsay, The Peace and Freedom Party as to 31 Order Dismissing Case. (Barnes, Robert) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
01/11/2013 RECEIPT number #CAE200049767 $455.00 fbo Peta Lindsay, et al., by Robert Edward Barnes on 1/11/2013 re Notice of Appeal 33 . (Mena-Sanchez, L) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
01/11/2013 35 APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re 33 Notice of Appeal filed by The Peace and Freedom Party, Peta Lindsay, Richard Becker. Filed dates for Notice of Appeal *1/10/2013*, Complaint *4/3/2012* and Appealed Order *12/11/2012*. ** *Fee Status: Paid on 1/10/2013 in the amount of $455.00* ** (Attachments: #1 Appeal Information, # 2 Certificate of Record) (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
02/01/2013 36 USCA CASE NUMBER 13-15085 for 33 Notice of Appeal filed by The Peace and Freedom Party, Peta Lindsay, Richard Becker. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 02/01/2013)

8 thoughts on “CA – Lindsay v Bowen – USDC – Docket

  1. This is a most interesting case. If there no duty for the SOS to vet or remove ineligible candidates, how was Lindsay removed. If information was submitted to the SOS, the SOS would have had to disseminate that information which implies vetting. If Linsay was ineligible, the SOS cannot give a reason why she was removed. The SOS is the chief elections officer and any insurance to make sure candidates are eligible would imply a duty. So in conclusion, how was it possible if the courts have ruled there is no duty to vet and no duty to remove.

  2. You seem to not understand that the absence of a duty does not mean that the SOS cannot remove a clearly inelligible candidate.

    Duty: You must do something

    Are all birthers that poor at reading comprehension? I can understand a foreigner like Orly may not understand the subtleties…

    I am working on an article in which I will explain why Lindsay is of no relevance to Orly’s case and why in fact it supports the ruling by the Judge in Orly’s case.

    Another fail. Why are birthers so intellectually lazy I wonder…

  3. Duty is little like premediation in a first degree murder case. If the court can prove the people made a thought before killing (even if for an instant or very short time) there is premediation. In this case, the SOS removed an ineligible candidate. The reason that can only exist for the SOS to do that is there is a duty to do it. In addition, the SOS had to be made aware of Lindsay’s ineligibility. Because the SOS received information Lindsay’s ineligibility to had a inherent duty to vet that candidate. The SOS could have not known about lindsay’s ineligibility unless there was a duty to vet; in this case a concious act to accept and be made aware of the decision.

  4. John: In this case, the SOS removed an ineligible candidate.

    Yes, it is within the SOS’s powers to remove clearly ineligible candidates. But that does not make it a duty.

    No duty to vet, which means that there is a requirement. surely even you must understand the difference between a duty: ‘must’ and a power: ‘may’.

    If you were to read the Lindsay case you would see that the Lawyer for Lindsay admitted to the ineligibility due to age to the SOS. The issue of age is a clear line and neutral issue, unlike the question which is heavily disputed: the eligibility of President Obama.

    Perhaps you should read the various court documents or wait for me to provide you with the necessary guidance.

    Your failure in logic is that the SOS could not have known about Lindsay’s eligibility unless there was a duty to vet. That however is not really the meaning of duty, nor is this the only way Lindsay’s ineligibility could come to light.

  5. So how could have the SOS known about Lindsay’s ineligibility if there was no duty to vet? The fact is the SOS received information and processed it where therefore implies a duty to vet. And like I said before, the SOS can never come up with reason why she removed Lindsay except the fact that she had the duty to remove her.

  6. Even though there no duty outlined in the statute, the SOS is the chief election officer of the State. She has take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, it her duty to uphold that oath. By removing Lindsay’s for the ballot, the SOS proved that there is inherent duty to remove ineligible candidates because the SOS can never provide a reason why Lindsey’s was removed except to as a duty she had to uphold her oath.

  7. So how could have the SOS known about Lindsay’s ineligibility if there was no duty to vet?

    She received information that Lindsay was not qualified because of the age. The office investigated, although it did not have a duty to do so.

    Duty means that there is a statute that states that the SOS MUST do something.

    The SOS MAY do something, is quite different.

    Educate yourself as to the meaning of the word DUTY.

  8. Even though there no duty outlined in the statute, the SOS is the chief election officer of the State. She has take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

    Which does not mean she has a duty to do anything, especially when that something are some poorly argued and disputed claims about eligibility.

    Good luck with your arguments, which is why birther suits fail so often. They do not understand the legal terms used.

    The SOS showed that under certain circumstances she MAY but not even MUST remove ineligible candidates.

    Read the cases for goodness sakes. John, you have shown yourself over time to be quite clueless but I have provided you with all the tools to educate yourself.

Comments are closed.