24-LSC-10135 - Pre-Trial - Wright v. Hockenbeyer

[Kotwica]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Donald J. Wright v. Judge Martin Hockenbeyer, in his personal and official capacity

Plaintiff Attorney: Donald J. Wright (pro se)

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

1. Check one box below that best describes this case:

 

Personal Torts

[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact

[ ] False imprisonment

[ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Negligent Torts

[X] Breach of duty

[ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress

[X] Professional or Medical Negligence

 

Property Torts

[ ] Trespassing or Conversion

[ ] Nuisance

[ ] Theft

[ ] Detainder

 

Dignitary Torts

[ ] Defamation (Slander or Libel)

[ ] Invasion of privacy

[ ] Breach of confidence

[ ] Abuse of process

[ ] Malicious prosecution

[ ] Alienation of affections

 

Business Torts

[ ] Fraud

[ ] Tortious interference

[ ] Conspiracy

[ ] Restraint of trade

[ ] Passing off

 

Contracts

[ ] Breach of Contract

[ ] Collections

 

Judicial Review

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License

 

2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc.

• $250,000.00 for attorney fees and travel as a result of the breach of duty.

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 02 day of November, 2024 by:

 

/S/ Donald J. Wright

Donald J. Wright

Plaintiff, pro se.

 

[Kotwica]

Donald J. Wright v. Judge Martin Hockenbeyer

 

Case Number: YY-XNNN

Prepared by: Donald J. Wright, pro se.

 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________________________________________

Comes now, Donald J. Wright, for and behalf of himself and the citizens of the State of San Andreas whom deserve all rights afforded to them under the U.S. Constitution brings suit against Judge Martin Hockenbeyer ("Martin Hockenbeyer").

 

Argument

1. Martin Hockenbeyer, is an employee of the Judiciary of San Andreas, assigned to this Los Santos County Courthouse.

 

2. Martin Hockenbeyer, either presides or presided over Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, and Michelle Jefferson vs Los Santos Police Department, cases before this court.

 

3. These cases are the cause of action for this complaint, establishing the proper jurisdiction and venue for this complaint.

 

4. In Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department, from August 19 through September 28, Judge Hockenbeyer without notice to the plaintiff of whom I represented took an unexplained hiatus, effectively diminishing my income as I was unable to take additional cases due to a trial.

 

5. In Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department, Judge Hockenbeyer has engaged in the same activity of taking an unexplained hiatus from October 19 through the time of filing, resulting in economic damage to myself, and my co-counsel in being unable to take additional cases.

 

6. Judge Hockenbeyer has utilized artificial intelligence through mechanisms such as ChatGPT or alike to render judicial decisions, violating public trust, and breaching his duty of care.

 

7. Judge Hockenbeyer has a duty as a judge to both the plaintiff and defendant of any case to (1) preside over trials, (2) interpret laws, (3) ensure fairness, (4) manage evidence, (5) sentence a criminal defendant (one can infer that awarding judgments would be sunonimous with sentencing). See In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955), see also Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1968).

 

8. Duty of care is violated when a judge does not act like similar professionals in same customs and affairs in that area.

 

9. The standard of care for a judge is clearly outlined in Code of Conduct for United States Judges, see Canon 2, Performance of Judicial Duties, and Canon 3, Fairness and Impartiality.

 

10. A suit is permitted against Judge Martin Hockenbeyer under Mireles v. Waco, 509 U.S. 9 (1991), and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as Judge Martin Hockenbeyer’s actions have a Constitutional consequence on due process. Additionally, as there is no Judicial Ethical Commission in San Andreas, as such this court is the sole remedy for rectifying and establishing precedent of such negligence.

 

11. The Plaintiff also demands special damages in the amount of $250,000.00, and that Judge Hockenbeyer receive a public censure and or dismissal from office.

 

 

Witness List

(1) Judge Hockenbeyer (named defendant).
(2) Judge Robleto
(3) Stefan Castillo
(4) Michelle Jefferson

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 02 day of November, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Donald J. Wright

Plaintiff, pro se.

Edited November 2, 2024 by Kotwica

[Kotwica]

(( @almightybounter, @Userone, @Fabi, @ScubaStef ))

[Tungsten]

Donald J. Wright

Plaintiff,

vs.

Judge Martin Hockenbeyer, in his personal and official capacity

Defendants.

 

Case No.: Unassigned

 

---

TEMPORARY ORDER SUSPENDING PROCEEDINGS

 

Upon initial review of this filing, this court finds that the filing is proper and initial cause of action is found to proceed. However, under the standing order of the Supreme Court of San Andreas, all civil proceedings that have not yet been assigned to a judge are suspended and cannot proceed indefinitely until a Presiding Judge of the Civil Division is appointed. As such, this case is unable to be accepted or assigned and will remain in a status of suspended until the administrative suspension is lifted by the Chief Justice.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

Hon. Peter K. Nichols, Jr.

Judge, 2nd District, Superior Court of San Andreas

[Tungsten]

Superior Court of San Andreas

County of Los Santos
Civil Division

---

Case Name: Donald J. Wright v. Judge Martin Hockenbeyer, in his personal and official capacity.
Case Number: 24-CV-1035

 

This court issues the following orders:

1. Assignment of Docket Number

The case is provisionally assigned the docket number 24-CV-1035, pending implementation of the Unified Docket System. When a new docket number is available, this court will notify all parties.

2. Order to Serve Parties

Donald J. Wright, acting pro se or through counsel to be appointed, is ordered to serve Martin Hockenbeyer, the Defendant, with process notifying him of this proceeding. The Defendant is to be notified in-person, by mail, by email, or by another suitable form of service that gives reasonable notice to the defendant within 10 days prior to the scheduled date for the beginning of proceedings. (( Send as a PM to all parties and include the assigned Judge. ))

3. Scheduling of Proceedings

This case is scheduled to proceed to pre-trial motions on January 14th, 2025. The judge to oversee this case will be assigned at a later time when resources permit. This date is subject to change with at least 14 days of notice to all parties. The parties are further ordered to preserve and take reasonable steps to prevent the destruction of all relevant evidence. Witnesses are ordered to remain in the state beginning 10 days before the beginning of proceedings through the final disposition of this matter. The parties are additionally ordered to begin the process of disclosure issuing subpoenas pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and the clerk shall issue any necessary subpoenas to facilitate this process. Copies of all subpoenas shall be filed with this court.

 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3rd, 2024

/s/ Peter K. Nichols, Jr.
Judge, Civil Division, 2nd District

Superior Court of San Andreas

 

(( @Kotwica @almightybounter ))

[Kotwica]

"The court has been delivered proof of service of process."

[Tungsten]

Superior Court of San Andreas

County of Los Santos
Civil Division

---

Case Name: Donald J. Wright v. Judge Martin Hockenbeyer, in his personal and official capacity.
Case Number: 24-CV-1035

 

This court, through the process of maintaining its docket, has seen fit to accelerate the hearing of this case to December 29th, 2024, at which time pre-trial motions will proceed.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22nd, 2024

/s/ Peter K. Nichols, Jr.
Judge, Civil Division, 2nd District

Superior Court of San Andreas

 

(( @Kotwica @almightybounter ))

[Tungsten]

** The case is called and proceedings begin before Judge Harold Weingarten, Civil Division, 1st Judicial District.

 

"Are the parties prepared to proceed? I assume service of process has been distributed?"

 

(( Activity warning: This case will be closed out OOC on January 22nd if no responses are received. ))

(( @Kotwica @almightybounter ))

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, process has been delivered to Mister Martin Hockenbeyer. He has been given ample opportunity to respond. At this time I am requesting a judgment against him be entered, that the full amount be awarded and that this judgement be made as a final judgment as the Defendant should know better and is acting in open defiance of the law and the authority this honorable court possesses. 

I can file my motion in writing but I don't think that it is necessary. However, it is your preference."

(( @Tungsten, @almightybounter )).

[Tungsten]

“Understood, Mr. Wright, we’ll adjourn for now and my clerk will make one last attempt to establish contact with Mr. Hockenbeyer before I enter a default judgment. We’ll resume proceedings tomorrow— if there’s no word by then, I’ll honor your request.”

 

** Judge Weingarten bangs the gavel and adjourns the court.

 

** The clerk attempts later to make contact.

 

(( @almightybounter @Kotwica ))

 

(( 24 hours from right now is 18:20 Eastern on 1/16/25 ))

[Tungsten]

** The court resumes proceedings before Judge Harold Weingarten, whose clerk calls the case.

 

"Uhh-- alright, Wright versus Hockenbeyer. The clerk will record that 23 hours have passed since our last proceeding. Mr. Wright has performed the necessary service of process and the clerk has attempted to make contact with the former judge Mr. Hockenbeyer. I am now prepared to proceed with a default judgment."

 

"First, we will examine the facts as presented by Mr. Wright. Since these facts have not been duly challenged by Mr. Hockenbeyer in the form of a reply brief, they will be afforded additional deference."

 

"In examining whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action for suit, we look Mireles as cited in the authorities. It is clear that Mr. Hockenbeyer, when acting in his judicial capacity, is immune from both suit and money damages. As the court said, 'it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself'. Therefore, we must examine next whether Mr. Hockenbeyer's actions exceeded his judicial authority and stepped into a non-judicial capacity. This court is bound by Mireles."

 

"Moving into an analysis of whether Mr. Hockenbeyer's actions exceeded his judicial authority, thereby becoming non-judicial, this court must examine two elements. First, this court considers whether Mr. Hockenbeyer's actions were 'de facto' unreasonable or in violation of his mandate. Second, this court must examine whether the actions of Mr. Hockenbeyer transferred from 'judicial' authority to 'executive' authority in a test outlined by Mireles. This court has examined the remainder of the authorities cited and finds no cause for consideration of any except Mireles and Murchison."

"In considering whether Mr. Hockenbeyer's actions were 'de facto' unreasonable, this court finds that the former judge's inattentiveness to the case at hand were in fact unreasonable. Mr. Hockenbeyer, while he was a judge, was required by the applicable professional standards set out in the Canons of Judicial Conduct. However, Mr. Hockenbeyer is immune from both suit and assessment of money damages under the framework set out in Mireles unless it can be demonstrated that his conduct departed from judicial authority and became either executive or personal. If the judge's conduct is executive in nature, this court must lessen Mr. Hockenbeyer's immunity to that of qualified immunity. If the judge's conduct is personal in nature, he receives no immunity. Therefore, this court must examine whether Mr. Hockenbeyer's actions as a judge were personal or executive in nature. Applying Murchison, this court finds that trial and conviction 'sua sponte' during the proceedings of Jefferson versus City of Los Santos, et alia, violated the due process clause of the fifth amendment as incorporated by the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause. This court is bound by Miranda v. Johnson, as incorporated, to enforce the fifth amendment guarantees afforded by the equal protection clause. Therefore, Mr. Hockenbeyer's actions in fact exceeded his judicial authority. This court finds that the actions taken by Mr. Hockenbeyer were mixed in nature – acting as both prosecutor, judge, and executioner – and therefore we must treat his actions as having been performed with executive authority. Therefore, under Mireles, Mr. Hockenbeyer is entitled to qualified immunity only. In order to determine whether Mr. Hockenbeyer receives immunity, this court must then examine whether Mr. Hockenbeyer's actions were 'de facto' unreasonable and whether existing case law placed Mr. Hockenbeyer on notice that such actions were unlawful. This court returns to Murchison in this examination and finds that Mr. Hockenbeyer is not entitled to qualified immunity. He is therefore liable for personal damages in this particular instance. However, this court also finds that the intrusion of the 'sua sponte' contempt proceeding was a 'de minimis' digression on the case at hand and had essentially no effect other than minor delays. Minor delays in trial proceedings do not warrant money damages, therefore this court does not award the special damages requested by Mr. Wright."

"Plaintiff Mr. Wright has also made an assertion that he is therefore entitled to recover damages in the amount that he would have recovered upon successful suit. However, Plaintiff has not shown sufficiently that his representation of Ms. Michelle Jefferson would have resulted in a victory for his client in Jefferson versus City of Los Santos, et alia. However, Mr. Wright achieved a win for his client Mr. Stefan Castillo in Castillo versus Los Santos Sheriff's Department. Therefore, this court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover money damages from Mr. Hockenbeyer in either case, however will affirm the right to recover money damages from Mr. Castillo. In doing so, Mr. Wright's compensation will be entirely dependent on the terms of his representation agreement with Mr. Castillo. Since this is not the suit at hand, this court will not award any damages here. Plaintiff is encouraged to make a reasonable attempt to collect payment from Mr. Castillo and to bring suit against him if collection is unsuccessful. This court also affirms the right to recover money damages from Ms. Jefferson at the contracted rate as permitted in the terms therein."

"Therefore the final order of default judgment issued by this court is as follows."

"Firstly, Mr. Wright is entitled to recover regular attorney fees from both Mr. Castillo and Ms. Jefferson according to the terms of his contract with each of them. If collection is unsuccessful, he may bring suit against them in order to collect such fees and this court will enforce that agreement as written and assented to. Secondly, Mr. Wright is not entitled to recovery of money damages in any amount from Mr. Hockenbeyer. Thirdly, Mr. Hockenbeyer will be forwarded to both the Judicial Commission and to the State Bar of San Andreas for both sanction proceedings and consideration of disbarment for his actions. This court is not able to rule on that issue and therefore forwards the matter to the proper authorities."

"If you believe I have erred in this decision, speak now or forever hold your peace – or, of course feel free to file a notice of appeal with this court within thirty days and I will grant leave. Are there any questions, comments, or concerns, counselors?"

** Judge Weingarten waits for any replies.

(( @Kotwica @almightybounter ))
(( Closing in 24 hours from now if no replies received. ))

[Tungsten]

** The docket is closed and the order is finalized.