No. 19-5721

In Re Craig Melvin Schafer

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2019-08-27
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights due-process extraordinary-writ judicial-accountability judicial-performance mandamus mandamus-writ standing state-liability takings tort-law
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2019-12-06 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is a state allowed to violate the 7th Amendment and deny civil hearings?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED This is a Mandamus Extraordinary Writ that is being requested because the state of California refused to obey its laws leading to the manslaughter of my wife. Now I am asking the State of California to obey their Tort law that Specifies the state can be held financially responsible for a judge’s actions. The state of California is now blocking hearings on this matter causing This Extraordinary Writ to be filed due to the absence of court findings. The question now becomes “Is a state allowed to violate the 7 amendment and deny civil hearings?” J have been filing a California Tort law case defined in section 912.7. This section of the Tort law allows the state to be held financially accountable for a judge’s actions, but the law requires the case must first be processed by the state and denied prior to filing a case with the court. I have found myself stuck in a loop where the San Joaquin Superior Court sent me in loop to the state level who just sent be back to the county level who is now blocking the case. This is not a matter of timeliness, I filed the case prior to the judge’s refusal to follow the law led to my wife’s death. J filed complaints to the presiding county judge and Commission for Judicial Performance immediately after her death (

Docket Entries

2019-12-09
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
2019-11-19
Petitioner complied with order of November 4, 2019.
2019-11-04
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 25, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2019-10-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.
2019-04-11
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 26, 2019)

Attorneys

Craig Melvin Schafer
Craig Melvin Schafer — Petitioner
Craig Melvin Schafer — Petitioner