Opinion
Case No. 2:09-cv-0587.
October 29, 2009
ORDER
The Court is in receipt of a facsimile letter to the Court from Plaintiff Charles R. Evans, dated October 29, 2009. A copy of the letter is attached as an exhibit to this Order. It appears that Plaintiff is again requesting this Court to provide him with relief from state court proceedings.
Letters to the Court are generally inappropriate and disfavored. Local Rule 7.2(c) provides that, with the exception of letters relating to settlement or as requested by the Court, all written communications to the Court "shall be by way of formal motion or memorandum submitted in compliance with these Rules," and "shall be contemporaneously served upon opposing counsel, unless otherwise ordered."
Even if Plaintiff were to file a motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. As Plaintiff is aware, this case is closed and is on appeal. As discussed in the Court's Order dated August 25, 2009, an appeal generally divests a district court of jurisdiction over a case. Because the Court has ruled on Plaintiff's motion to reconsider, his appeal has become effective, and this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the case. See Mongiove v. United States, No. 95-5571, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 35132 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 1995); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(a)(4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FAX TRANSMITTAL FROM: The Office of Charles R. Evans (Chuck) 1892 Rear Oakland Park Avenue Columbus, Ohio, USA 43224-3628 614-203-1608 FAX 614-268-7977 crevans57@sbcglobal.net "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce and brave man, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." — Mark Twain INFORMATION TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 29, 2009 2:30 p.m.No. of PAGES 2 FAX NUMBER 614-719-3246
THIS FAX IS FOR Judge Edmund Sargus — Federal District Court
cc: S. Ames, Dr. Smalldon, P.AuCoin, AdmJ. Reece 462-5888, AdmJ. Preisse 462-7440,
Sr.J. Cain 462-2462
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS CONFIDENTIAL. THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED AS THE RECIPIENT. IF THE READER OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Judge Edmund Sargus Reference to Case No: 09-00587 District Court for Eastern District of Southern Ohio Columbus, Ohio Judge Sargus:I wanted to advise you that the divorce proceeding in Case No. 07 DR-0355 is still on hold. Over a month ago a joint motion for leave was presented to Richard Sheward by my attorney Steve Ames and my estranged spouse's attorney who is also co-counsel in the case where Sheward wrongly designated me a vexatious litigator in a more commonly occurring abused counterclaim. They wanted J. Sheward to issue a vexatious designation, but then decided that they needed it to be "temporarily" held in abeyance for the divorce proceeding after J. Sheward denied leave to proceed in early June. They are just manipulating the system for their own purposes-I am either vexatious or not-you would think that the games played would stop at chambers, rather than infiltrate them.
Now, even they can't get a joint motion signed for leave. My constitutional rights have been so obliterated I have no belief that anyone has the fortitude to step in and make something happen with this incompetent elected official. My federal parental rights have been denied without a hearing, even the domestic judge Thomas Louden admitted that a temporary orders hearing was never held in his order 7 or so months ago.
The administrative Judges and senior judge of the common pleas court have been totally informed and still nothing. As the post-decision permission for leave is an administrative exercise {Mayer v. Bristow, 91 Ohio St. 3d 3, 2000-Ohio-109 addressing the leave requirements as an administrative conduit}, I am asking that someone assign it to another judge who is not so biased and prejudiced that he/she can see a sufficiently pled claim. Further where the matter is a statutorily created monopoly, i.e., divorce; leave should not even be required. Further, a right of appeal must be a right for all litigants, and certainly when the vexatious litigant is represented by counsel (see Sailing, Inc. v. Pavarini, 2007-Ohio-6844). A litigant subject to the impropriety of a judge who is deranged and/or biased has no recourse and no appeal where the state statute R.C. 2323.52, i.e., the procedures I was challenging in the federal suit, implicates fundamental parental and property rights.
I made 2 claims, a general challenge to the procedures on the state statute, 28 USC 1331 and a second independent challenge under 42 USC 1983 challenging the deprivation by a state actor. I understand the reasoning for dismissal under Rooker for the 2nd claim as it appeared to be an impermissible state court challenge; however, it should not necessarily apply to the first cause, a general challenge. I had to show that I had standing (Art. III), therefore I had to snow that the deprivation of my parental rights was caused by the application of the procedures (i.e., request for leave) R.C. 2323.52 to me and of course, in a general challenge to all members of the class of designated litigants. That is where Rooker fails-it makes it too easy under Catz to make inextricably intertwined an easy way out for a federal court. The court should have followed Planet Earth "Diamonds" citing VanHarken (7th Circuit).
The bottom line is that I had no ability to appeal prejudice and impropriety because the procedures written in the statute denied a right of appeal. Because I had no ability to reverse the designation, once again the statutory procedures, as written, denied this litigant his constitutionally-protected parental and property rights.
As an aside, I have a child support fee issue pending from many years ago-I cannot get leave to object to the assessment (a property issue) . . . and the Child Support Agency has even admitted there are discrepancies . . . by-the-way this motion for leave is pending (filed by my attorney w/Sheward) and certainly not a vexatious claim where the state monopolizes the only avenue of redress. It is a sufficiently pled cause of action-as ALL of my cases have ALWAYS been.
One more thing-Sheward's obstinacy has denied a minor child his associational rights with his parent-another federal right implicated — and one wonders why there is no confidence in the judicial system. And time CAN NEVER BE RECOVERED. He is screwing an innocent child out of his childhood.
I don't know where to go and what to do — and neither does any attorney I know who has heard about this. So, I am letting you know where my rights exist-I have none. I have fewer rights than heinous criminals, fewer rights than immigrants who have not been granted residency-I am in legal limbo and no remedy-at all.
Richard Sheward is a runaway train and he is abusing every bit of authority and all of which he is not even invested with. Someone needs to address this deadlock-yesterday.
Thank you for your time in reading my litany of concerns.
Chuck Evans