Supplemental Brief — Teresa Miller, Petitioner v. West Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.

Supreme Court briefDec 7, 2017

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

-/'7 (~

5~?

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITIONER

(Your Name)

S 5S+(icf

J_\

flc\

Lr —

ker1'

L~~?

OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(Your Name)

(Address)

)koc q OJO

(City, State,

Code)

(Phone Number)

R ECEIVED

2011

HE CLERK

SUPREME COURT. U.S.

Questions

Why is The federal court in dating review of my cases calling the mood before

they even get a chance to be heard? Examples enclosed.

Why am I not been granted a transfer or a change of venue when asking for one

on cases filed in the court? Examples enclosed

Why were two judges I had previously been dismissed from cases before

disqualification do the prejudice again reassigned to another case just to have it

dismissed as moot?examples enclosed

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION...................................................................................................................

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................

i... 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..........................................................................................

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........................................................................

CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

A-PP̀ i

av1 P1eccrLq OYJ

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

LjO3

A~l

oc )

APPENDIX D

APPENDJSyYcZ5(U3O\-cC

APPENDIX F

(

OF 3

AP 6-:2

-P P7

öOn

I (an5r U

N 13

CONSTITUTIONAL AND.

•

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

2017 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 38 Right to a Jury Trial; Demand

RULE. 21. Transfer of trial

28 U.S. Code § 1332 Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; cost

8 th admendmant to the U.S. Constitution,

42 U.S. Code, Section 1983, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4. Appeal as of Right—When Taken?

OTHER

3.3 Mootness

Updated 2016 by Jeffrey S. Gutman

•

See Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, incoiorated, 528

U.S. 167, 180 (2000).

• 2.

Id. at 190.

• I

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 'U.S. 43, 68 n.23 (1997).

• 4.

Id.

• 5.

Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Incorporated v. West Virginia Department of

Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 608-10 (2001), discussed in Chapter

9 of this MANUAL. See also Gill Deford, The Prevailing Winds After

Buckhannon, 36 Clearinghouse Rev. 313 (Sept.-Oct. 2002).

• 6.

In Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017 (2013), the Supreme Court discussed

mootness at length in a complex child abduction case and held that the dispute

between the parents was not moot because issues regarding the custody of the

child remained unresolved. The Court noted that the prospects of success of the.

suit were irrelevant to the mootness question, and uncertainty about the

effectiveness and enforceability of any future order did not moot the case. Chafin,

133 S. Ct. at 1024-26. A case is moot, however, when the court cannot give any

"effectual" relief to the party seeking it. See Knox v. Service Employees

International Union. Local 1000, 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2287 (2012); Church of

Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992); Firefighter's

Local 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 571 (1984); see also Tory v. Cochran, 544

U.S. 734, 736-37 (2005) (death of attorney Johnnie Cochran did not moot

injunction enjoining plaintiff from defaming Cochran). A case can, of course,

become moot when the plaintiff has abandoned their claims, but such

abandonment must be unequivocal. Pacific Bell Telephone Company v. Linkline

Communications, 555 U.S. 438,446 (2009).

See, e.g., In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2005).

Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 370 n.1 (1987), illustrates the use of a

damage claim to avoid mootness. Prisoners who were denied parole without a

statement of reasons challenged the denial. They claimed that the state statute

mandating release under certain circumstances created a liberty interest in

eligibility for parole protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs sought

damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Although plaintiffs were

later released, mooting their individual claims for injunctive relief, their damage

claims remained alive. Because the immunity of defendants was not settled, the

Supreme Court reached the merits, holding that plaintiffs had a cognizable liberty

interest in the processing of their parole applications. The Court remanded the

case for further proceedings. See also City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company,

488 U.S. 469, 478 n.1 (1989). An inability to pay a damages judgment at present

does not moot a claim. See United States v. SBehrman, 235 F.3d 1049, 1053 (7th

Cir. 2000). However, if the judgment seemingly could never be paid, a claim

might be dismissed on prudential grounds. See, e.g., Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation v. Kooyomjian, 220 F.3d 10, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2000).

13.

Litigation challenging discontinued practices or policies that continue to produce

collateral harm is not moot. See, e.g., Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528

U.S. 320, 327 (2000) (challenge to redistricting plan following election is not

moot because prior plan represents baseline for evaluating future challenges);

Firefighters Local Union No. 1.784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561, 568-72 (1984) (city's

challenge to injunction prohibiting layoffs based on seniority system not mooted

by recall of laid-off employees when injunction would require city to ignore

seniority rights in future layoffs and would affect its ability to recruit new

employees by precluding it from offering protection of layoff by seniority); Jago

v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 21 n.3 (1981) (challenge to procedures leading to

rescission of forthcoming parole not mooted by later release on parole when later

release subject to restrictions not contemplated by original grant of parole);

Youakim v. Miller, 425 U.S. 231, 236 n.2 (1976) (challenge to reduction in

benefits for foster children related to foster parents not mooted by increase in

benefits when effect is to discourage acceptance of other family members

awaiting placement); Super Tire Engineering Company v McCorkle, 416 U.S.

115, 127 (1974) (challenge to rule denying Aid to Families with Dependent

Children benefits to strikers not, mooted by settlement of strike when rule affects

every labor dispute and collective bargaining agreement).

•

14.

United States v. W.T. Grant Company, 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953); see also Friends

of the Earth v. LaidJaw Environmental Services, incorporated, 528 U.S. 167, 189,

193 (2000) (quoting and citing United States v. Concentrate Phosphate Export

Association, 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968)) ("A case might become moot if

subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior

could not reasonably be expected to recur."); Adarand Constructors v. Slater, 528

U.S. 216, 222 (2000) (burden of showing non-recurrence lies with party asserting

mootness).

• 15.

A different issue arises when a third party voluntarily discontinues conduct that is

the focus of the litigation. In Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67

(1983), the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

informed the University of Miami that the university had violated Title IX by

permitting a student organization that barred women from membership to conduct

its initiation ceremony on campus. The organization sued the secretary to enjoin

further enforcement of the interpretation of Title IX. During the litigation, the

university informed the organization that, irrespective of the outcome of the

litigation, the organization would not be permitted to return to campus until the

organization stopped discriminating. Because the university's action effectively

superseded the secretary's action, the Supreme Court held the challenge to the

secretary's interpretation of Title IX moot, reasoning that the interpretation no

longer could affect the organization. The Court did not decide whether the W.T.

Grantstandard applied to the voluntary acts of third parties; the Court reasoned

that, even if it did, the public statement of the university president banning the

organization from campus established that the controversy between the

organization and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was unlikely

ever to recur.

• 16.

Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 193-94.

• 17.

City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287-88 (2000).

• 18.

Compare City News and Novelty incorporatcdv. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S.

278, 284 (2001) (unsuccessful challenge to city licensing ordinance is moot when

adult-oriented business decided not to renew license).

• 19.

For a recent case touching on this factor, see Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020,

2033-35 (2011).

• 20.

Compare Sheeiy v. MRI Radiology Network, 505 F.3d 1173, 1187 (11th Cir.

2007) (defendant's failure to admit to wrongdoing suggests that cessation

was driven by desire to avoid liability) and DeJohn v. Temple University, 537

F.3d 301, 309 (3rd Cir. 2008) (challenge to sexual harassment policy not moot

when policy changed well into litigation and university continued to defend it)

with Larsen v. U. S. Navy, 525 F.3d .1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (challenge to quota

policy for chaplains moot when plaintiffs did not allege that replaced policy

would be reinstated) and Wisconsin Right to Life, incorporated v. Schober, 366

F.3d 485, 491-92 (7th Cir. 2004) (accepting assertions of state election board that

it would not enforce a campaign finance law found unconstitutional, but not

struck from the state code); 13A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and

Procedure § 3533.7 at 353 (2d ed. 1984).

• 21.

See Wernsing v. Thompson, 423 F.3d 732, 745 (7th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff did not

show need for injunctive relief against prior restraint policy when new supervisor

disclaimed the policy as only that of her predecessor), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1004

(2006).

• 22.

See United States v. W.T. Grant Company, 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953); Desiderio

v. National Association of Securities Dealers, 191 F.3d 198, 201-02 (2d Cir.

1999).

City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle Incorporated, 455 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1982).

See Pederson v. Louisiana State University, 213 F.3d 858, 874-75 (5th Cir. 2000);

Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, 135 F.3d 1260, 1274-75

(9th Cir. 1998); American Iron and Steel institute v. Environmental Protection

Agency, 115 F.3d 979, 1006-07 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17 (1996); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482

(1982).

•

36.

Federal Energy Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449, 463

(2007) (referring to both formulations); see Buckley v. Archer-Daniels-Midland

Company, lii F.3d 524, 527-28 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying various standards of

the possibility of recurrence, such as "reasonable expectation," "demonstrated

probability," and not "highly unlikely").

• 37.

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461. U.S. 95(1983); Buckley, 111 F.3d at 527-28

("demonstrated possibility" required) (quoting Board of Education v. Steven L.,

89 F.3d 464, 468 (7th Cir. 1996)).

. 38.

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 109; see also Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982) (per

curiam) (challenge to state constitutional provision denying pretrial releas-e in

sexual assault case mooted by conviction; no probability that plaintiff will again

be arrested and detained pending trial); Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149

(1975) (per curiam) (challenge to procedures governing release on parole mooted

by unconditional release; no probability that plaintiff will again be affected by

procedures).

Honig V. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 305 (1988).

Id. at 320.

Id. at 319 n.6. In Kingdomware, the plaintiffs "reasonable likelihood" of being

awarded future government contracts if its interpretation of particular

procurement statute prevails was sufficient to establish that the dispute was

capable of repetition. Kingdomware, 136 S. Ct. at 1976. See Alvarez v. Smith,

130 S. Ct. 576, 581 (2009) (that plaintiffs will "likely" not be subject to

challenged state procedures again moots challenge to them).

See Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 594 n.6 (1999) (action to require treatment

for disabilities not moot even after plaintiffs were placed in requested programs

because they had many institutional placements in the past)

Case law

Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries,

509 F.3d406, 420-421 (8th Cir. 2007);

Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 329 F.3d 608, 611 (8th Cir. 2003).

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S.Ct. 978,140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998)

St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41,63 S.Ct. 910,87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943)

Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 at 52, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968),

Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 67 S.Ct. 224, 91 L.Ed. 196 (1946)

Ginsburg v. State of New York, 390 U.S. 629, 633, 99 S.Ct. 1274, 1277, 20 L.Ed.2d 195,

n. 2 (1968)

United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954)

Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 77 S.Ct 481, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957),

Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 577, 80 S.Ct 909, 911, 4 L.Ed.2d 963 (1960

Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 64, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968)

Port v. Heard, 764 F.2d 423 (1985).

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998

Lane- v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624,102 S.Ct. 1322,71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982)

Statement of case

I have included a recent case that I found in the federal court and my supplemental brief

it shows that the federal court is it waiting review of my cases and dismissing them

before they even go to trial after asking for transfer of cases due to prejudice and change

venues I had previously been granted and other cases filed these new cases were then

assigned to the same judges that the cases had already been transferred one due to

disqualification for prejudiced.

I originally filed and JS 44 civil coversheet and the information pertaining with it

on October 31, 2017.

I received a notice of the fish and pleading stating I had to fill out a Bevins act on

October 31, 2017.

That is a prisoner complaint form I am not a prisoner as I called and informed

them I was told to fill out that information packet anyways.

After filling it out and sending it in they sent me a Nother complaint a civil

complaint for a non-prisoner because I realize that I was not a prisoner.

I thought of a motion for transfer to another district or circuit due to prejudiced on

October 31, 2017.

About a motion for a jury trial on October 31, 2017.

I filed a motion for change of venue

I received orders dismissing my case because I filed a Bevins act 4803 US three

88 1971. On November 29, 2017 case number 2:17 CV 137

I received a notice of dismissal on November 30, 2017 case number 2:17 CV 132

because I filed a Bevins at 403 US 388 1971

These were packets that the federal court sent to me and instructed me to fill out

even though I try to explain to them I am not a prisoner on mailing address does

not go to a present for Sillinti and they know by the postage on it that I was a

regular citizen it was sent in FedEx

On December 4, 2017 I sent in a notice of appeal on dismissal to file and en banc

under federal appellate procedure 35, federal rules of appellate procedure ,rule

three and four, federal rules of appellate procedure rule 40 petition for panel

rehearing rule 3008 ,39 of the federal rules of civil procedure

After calling and asking and they receive my filing in bank for rehearing of my

case I was informed that the case would then be sent to the fourth circuit without

anyone bothering to rehear my case and I would have to file there I do not

understand why I would not be granted a chance for my try to go to court at the

federal level and how they can deny an appeal and just forward it to the Fourth

Circuit

Reasons to grant &

I would like to add this to my supplement brief it says further discrimination from the

federal court. I had just filed this case and had not received the documents when I filed

the first supplemental breif. These are further examples of discrimination against me buy

them evading review of any of my cases by deciding them as moot so they do not have to

award any damages to me that was originally caused by the state and state facilities. I do

not understand what the state and the federal government are trying to cover up by not

hearing a case or transferring it out of the district that it has originally been filed in This

denying me my right to it they are tribunal. But this is an original one they sent me the

wrong packet to fill out one purpose after I originally found the right one just so they

could decide my case is moot so they wouldn't have to review it.

00J

P?orne'k-?IO

in [eeu e/7' ell

/ or

1;I

C)Wle

ce;far

);1 ed

e cfC

ôDV o;cu s'

~Kes ell)

CONCLUSION'

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

D-

-/7

p+ 17

CIVIL COVER SHEET

07/16)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor Supplement the film and service of pleadings or other papers as rectuired by law, except as

provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conf&ence of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the tlerk of Court for

the

purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ONNEXTl'AGEOF THIS FORM.)

-DEFENDANTS UI

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

7cec )

Lkni -edr €rfl

County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

'ounty of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF C'ASFS)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: INLAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED,

Attorneys (First Na,,,e, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in O,ie Box Only)

U.S. Government

Plaintiff

)J 2 U.S. Government

Defendant

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an 'X" in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only.)

IF 4EJt

Federal Question

X (U.S. Government Not a Party)

Citizen of This State

)J 4 Diversity

(indicate Citizenship of Fames in heist III)

and One Box/or Defendant)

PTF DEF

Incorporated or Principal Place

of Business In This Slate

0 4

Citizen of Another State

0 2

0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another Slate

0 5

Citizen or Subject of a

0 3

0 3 Foreign Nation

0 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an 'X" is, O;,e Ray O,,Ie)

CONTRACT

TORTS

0 110 Insurance

.FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY

0 365 Personal Injury Product Liability

0 367 Health Card

Pharmaceutical

Personal Injury

Product Liability

0 368 Asbestos Personal

Injury Product

0 625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881

0 690 Other

Liability

PERSONAL PROPERTY

0 370 Other Fraud

0 371 Truth in Lending

0 380 Other Personal

Property Damage

0 385 Property Damage

Product Liability

LABOR

0 710 Fair Labor Standards

Act

0 720 Labor/Management

Relations

O 210 Land Condemnation

0 220 Foreclosure

'440 Other Civil Rights

0 441 Voting

Habeas Corpus:

0 463 Alien Detainee

O 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment

O 240 Tons to Land

O 245 Tort Product Liability

0 290 All Other Real Property

0 442 Employment

0. 510 Motions to Vacate

0 443 Housing!

Sentence

Accommodations

0 530 General

0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penalty

PERSONAL INJURY

0 120 Marine

0 310 Airplane

O 130 Miller Act

0 315 Airplane Product

0 140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

0 ISO Recovery of Overpayment

0 320 Assault, Libel &

& Enforcement of Judgment

Slander

151 Medicare Act

0 330 Federal Employers'

0 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Liability

Student Loans

0 340 Marine

(Excludes Veterans)

0 345 Marine Product

O 153 Recovery of Overpayment

Liability

of Veteran's Benefits

0 350 Motor Vehicle

0 160 Stockholders' Suits

0 355 Motor Vehicle

0 190 Other Contract

Product Liability

O 195 Contract Product Liability

0 360 Other Personal

0 196 Franchise

Injury

0 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice

REAL PROPERTY

CIVIL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

Employment

Other:

0 446 Amer. wlDisabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other

Other

0 550 Civil Rights

0 448 Education

0 555 Prisnn Cndition

0 60 Civil Detainee -

BANKRUPTCY

0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

0 423 Withdrawal

28 USC 157

PROPERTY RIGHTS

0 820 Copyrights

0 830 Patent

0 840 Trademark

0 740 Railway Labor Act

0 751 Family and Medical

Leave Act

0 790 Other Labor Litigation

SOCIAL SECURITY

0 861 HIA (1395f0

0 862 Black Lung (923)

J 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))

0 864 SSID Title XVI

0 865 RSI (405(g))

0 850 Securities/Commodities!

Exchange

0 890 Other Statutory Actions

0 891 Agricultural Acts

0 893 Environmental Matters

0 895 Freedom of Information

0 791 Employee Retirement

FEDERAL.TAX.SUITS

Income Security Act

0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

or Defendant)

0 896 Arbitration

0 871 IRS—Third Party

26 USC 7609

Act/Review or Appeal of

Agency Decision

Ell 950 Constitutionality of

State Statutes

IMMIGRATION

0 462 Naturalization Application

0 465 Other Immigration

Actions

Confinement

ORIGIN (pIacean"X"h7 One Box Only)

.. I.

Act

0 899 Administrative Procedure

Conditions of

OTHER STATUTES

0 375 False Claims Act

0 376Qui Tam (31 USC

3729(a))

0 400 State Reapportionment

0 410 Antitrust

0 430 Banks and Banking

0 450 Commerce

0 460 Deportation

0 470 Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations

0 480 Consumer Credit

0 490 Cable/Sat TV

Np- _~ -,-),

#: 81

Case 2:17-cv-00132-JPB-.JES Document 3 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 1 PagelD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

ELKINS

Teresa Miller

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00132

Plaintiff

United States District Court for the Southern District of West

Virginia, et al

Defendant

NOTICE OF DEFICIENT PLEADING

AND INTENT TO DISMISS

The pleading is not on a court-approved form. Therefore, the Clerk is giving notice as follows:

• The Pleading will be stricken from the docket within thirty (30) days from the date of this notice.

LRPLP3.4.7

• This action will be dismissed without prejudice within thirty (30) days from the date of this notice.

LR Civ P41.01

•. If Petitioner wishes to pursue this action, he must file on the ATTACHED CORRECT FORMS

per Local Rules of Prisoner Litigation Procedure .4**.

If Petitioner RE-FILES on the correct forms, a new civil action number will be given to that filing.

**WARNING!

FAILURE TO COMPLETE AND SUBMIT EACH OF THE CORRECT AND

REQUIRED FORMS IN THEIR ENTIRETY .COULD.RESULT IN DELAYS IN

YOUR CASE OR YOUR COMPLAINT COULD BE DISMISSED!

WHEN REFIL1NG WITH CORRECT COMPLAINT/PETITION FORM, MERELY

STATING ON THE FORM "SEE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT" OR "SEE

ORIGINAL PETITION" OR ATTACHING THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT!

PETITION AS AN EXHIBIT IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

031Ll

Enclosures

Cheryl Dean Riley

Clerk of Court

Case 2.17-cv-00137-JPB-JES Document 2 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 4 PagelD

#: 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

ELKINS DIVISION

Teresa Miller

Plaintiff,

2:17-cv-001 37

Civil Case No.

VS.

United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, et Al

Defendant.

Notice of General Guidelines for Appearing Pro Se'

In Federal Court

The above styled action has been assigned to the United States District Judge Bailey

and United States Magistrate Judgc ..Seibert.,

Listed below are some guidelines that are relevant to your case:

Current Address: Keep the Court and opposing counsel, if any, advised of your most

current address at all times. Failure to do so may result in your action being dismissed

without prejudice.

Contacting the Court: Do not send letters Or documents directly to the judge(s) assigned

to your case. All. contact .withthe Court must be in writing and sent to the following

address:

U.S. District Court

P.O. Box 1518

Elkins, WV 26241

file

Sending Documents to the Court: When filing documents with the Court, always

above).

the original plus two copies of each one with the Clerk's Office (use the address noted

............

..... .

'Pro Se means acting as your own attorney.

-1-

.... .' -

Case 2:17-cv-00137-JPB-JES Document 2 Filed 11/21/17 Page 2 of 4 PagelD #: 13

Sending Documents to the Respondent: If the respondent has responded in the case,

you are required to send a copy of any documents you send to the Court to his or her

counsel. You let the Court know that you've done this by completing a certificate of

service and attaching it to the original of the document and all copies before you send

them to the Court and to the respondent. (sample certificate attached)

Legal Advice: The District Judges, Magistrate Judges, Pro Se Law Clerk and the Clerk's

Office cannot provide you with legal advice. They can provide you with the proper forms

to file civil actions and advise you as to the status of your case. For example, if you write

in and ask "What is happening in my case?" The Clerk can advise you that it is still

before the magistrate, or it is now before the district judge. The Clerk cannot answer

questions such as "Should I file a motion for appointment of counsel?" or similar questions.

You have to decide those questions on your own. If you have any questions, please contact the

Clerk's Office (use the address noted above).

Rules: Your case is subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules

of the Northern District of West Virginia. For prisoners, a. copy of each of these should be

located at your institution for your use. If not, please contact us at the address above and

we will contact the institution to ensure that it has a copy of those rules to provide for

your use.

Pro Se Packet: Pro se filers, other than prisoners,, should request a Pro Se packet from

the Court.

E-Government Act: The E-Government Act of 2002prohibits litigants from including

personal data identifiers in court filings. The Act specifically applies to the following

personal data identifiers:

Social Security Numbers: use only the last four digith of that number.

Names of Minor Children: .Use. only the child's initials.

Dates of Birth: use only the year.

Finiincial Account Numbers: use only the last fOur digits of these numbers.

Home Address in Criminal Cases: include only the city and state.

If you must include any information that violates this guidance, file a redacted copy with

the Court pursuant to LR Gen P 5.08. The responsibility for redacting these personal

identifiers rests solely with •the .filer.The Clerk will not review each filing for

compliance with the E-Government Act Orwith'LR Gèn P 5:08.

AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT

Cheryl Dean Riley, Clerk of Court

By:

K. Zórnbek

Deputy Clerk

-2-

Case 2:17-cv-00137-4PB-JES Document 2 Filed 11/21/17 Page 3 of 4 PageD #:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

LIFM

Civil Action No.:

Certificate of Service

I, (your name here), appearing pro Se, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing

(title of document being sent) upon the defendant/respondent by depositing true copies of the

same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record for the

defendant/respondent on (insert date here):

(List name and address of counselfor defendant/respondent)

(sign your name)

Case 2:17-cv-00137-JPB-JES Document 2 Filed 11/21/17 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #: 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Case Number:

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND/OR CONTACT INFORMATION FOR

PRO SE LTIGNTS

(Note: You must keep your contact information (address and phone number) current with the court.

The Court and opposing counsel will send orders, correspondence, motions, pleadings, notices,, to

the last address filed with the Court in writing. Please file a separate Notice of Change of Address

form for each case in which you are involved.)

I hereby notify the Court that my address has changed as follows:

Your name:

Old Address:

New address:

My current telephone number is:

I hereby request that copies of any future orders, correspondence, motions,

pleadings, notices, etc., be provided to me at this new address.

I will notify the Ciçrk of Court in writing by illing anew Notice form if my address

or telephone number changes.

Date:

Sgnature

Case 2:17-cv-00137-JPB-JES Document 7 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 3 PagelD #: 179

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

ELKINS

TERESA MILLER,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-V-137

(BAILEY)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

WEST VIRGINIA, and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE FOURTH-CIRCUIT,

Defendailts:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This civil action was-filed on November 21, 2017, by Teresa Miller. acting pro se

[Doc.. 1]. For the reasons stated below, the Complaint [Doc. Ijis DISMISSED

"[A] court has an obligation to Inquire sua sponte into Its subject matter junsdiction,

and to proceed no further if such junsdlction is wanting" in re Recticel FoamCorp... 859

F 2d 1000, 1002 (1st Cir 1988), Fed -Ai CM P 12(h)(3)(if the court determines at any

time that it lacks subject-matterjunsdlction, the court must dismiss the action") Here, the

allegations in the Complaint fail to provide this Court with subject matter jurisdiction

Plaintiffs Complaint is brought pursuant to Blvens v Six Unknown NamedAgents

of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U S 388(1971), which established a direct cause

of action under the United States. Constitution against federal officials fOr the violation of

constitutional nghts Id aj397, see also Hoijy v Scott, 434 F.3d 287,289(4th dr. 2006)

However, under the doctnrie of sovereign immunity, the United States, its departments,

Case 2:17-cv00137-JPB-JES Document 7 Filed 11/29/17 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #: 180

and its agencies cannot be sued without its express consent. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S.

471, 475 (1994); United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983); Global Mail Ltd.

v. United States Postal Serv.., 142 F.3d 208, 210 (4th Cir. 1998) (federal governmental

entity entitled to sovereign immunity unless Congress waives that immunity and consents

to suit).

Here, plaintiff has named as the sole defendants the United States District Court for

the Southern District of West Virginia and the "United States District Court for the Fourth

Circuit," assuredly intending the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit The

United States has not consented to suôh suits. .F011, :510 U.S. at 484-8.6 (declining to

extend Bivens to permit suit against a federal agency)."Sovereign immunity is

jurisdictional in nature?' Id at475; see also Global Mail Ltd 142 F3d at210Sovereign

immunity deprives a court of. jurisdiction .to hear a. case:'). Thus, because the United

States has not waived itssovereign ImfliUflhtY this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over plaintiffs Complaint.

To the extent plaintiff intended to assert a constitutional claim against any individual

judges of either court, itiswell settled.that judges have absolute immunity from a claim for

damages arising out of their judicial actions.... Mlreléss:v.Waco,502 U.S. 9.12 (1991);

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547,7 553-54. (1967) ("Few doctrines were more solidly

established at common law than the immunity of judges froth liability for damages for acts

committed within. their judicial jurisdiction?'). The purpose of the doctrine of judicial

immunity is to "protect judicial independence by insulating judges from vexatious actions

prosecuted by disgruntled litigants," Forrester v..Whife, 484 U.S. 219,225(1988)—which

Case 2:17-cv-00137-JPB-JES Document 7 Filed 11/29/17 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #: 181

is seemingly the case here. As a result, njudges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction

are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of

their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." Stump v.

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (internal citation and quotation omitted). in any

event If plaintiff is dissatisfied with an adverse ruling from the defendants, the proper

recourse is to file an appeal.

Accordingly, It Is ORDERED that this civil action be, and the same is hereby,

DISMiSSED WIT1IOUT:PREJUD!cE.for.Wantofsubjectmaftetjurisdiction, pursuant to

Rule I 2(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and retired from the active docket

Oc i b

of this Court. ltiSfurtherÔRDEREDthat all

hereby- DENIED ASMOOT

ltissoORDERED.

'....

:.-.

.....

.•.,

..,

The clerk It 4W66ted.16 trarismit-doples of this Order.tb any counsel of record herein

and to mali a coy'àtheprosepIántifL.

r':..-

DATED .6- Novernw-2 w1z

.. ...,.

J HNPREST N BAILEY

TATES DISTRICTJUDG

•

. -

•.

.. -.

... -

......

...-.

.,. .,.

.-'

.- .•..

3..

•,

•..

. .

..-

RP7

Case 2:17-cv-00132-JPB-JES Document 7 Filed 11130117 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #: 92

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

TERESA MILLER,

Plaintiff,.

Civil Action No. 2:17cv132

(Judge Bailey)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

WEST VIRGINIA, and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT,

Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On October 31., 2017, theprose pintiff Teresa MiDe.(hernafterpIaiflUff),..filed

this civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens vi Six Unknown Named A gents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.&388 (1971) On that same date, the Clerk of Court issued

the plaintiff, a Noticed Deficient Pleading and Intent to Dismiss The Notice informed the

.............................................................

plaintiff that the instant action would ibe dismissed within 30 days of the Notice ard furtlier

informed the plaintiff that if she wished to pursue her claims, she tIould be required to refile her Complaint on the Court-approved form which was sent to her with the Notification

The Clerk of Court mistakenly sent the plaintiff the forms required to be filed by an

incarcerated'person.' therefore, on November 14, 2017, the Clerk of Court sent the

plaintiff the appropriate forms for a non-prisoner.

On November 21, 2017, the plaintiff .refited bpth sets Of forms, and the Clerk of

Court opened Civil Action No 2 17cv137 Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the

Notification, and for the further reasons set forth,n the Order entered onNovember 29,

2017, dismissing that case, it is hereby ORDERED that his action be DISMISSED. It is

also ORDERED that the Plalntiff"s Motion to Proceed in fOrraa pauperis [Doc. 21 be

DENIED AS MOOT.

Case 2:17-cv-00132-JPB-,JES Document 7 Filed 11/30117 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #: 93

The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff by certified mail,

return receipt requested, to her last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.

DATED: September 30, 2017.

jPRESTON

PRESTON BAt LEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In the United States court for the northern district of West Virginia Elkins division

Teresa Miller

Civil Num

2:16cv132

And

2:16cv137

United States district court for the southern division of West Virginia

United States federal court for the Fourth circuit

Notice of appeal on dismissal to file en banc

Now comes the petitioner Teresa Miller pro se to appeal the desision to dismiss and to rehear her case

en banc

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35

Under

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rule 3 and 4

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rule 40. Petition for Panel Rehearing

Rule 3008, Rule 59 F.R.Civ.P.

Due to the fact that she file a motion for transfer and a motion for change of venue due to prejudice and

disqualification of judges previously in that district. And that her case was filed against the federal court

for the fourth circuit,

Thus making it impossible for her case to be reviewed and damages be awarded to her.

She originally filed a civil suit on a JS44 civil cover sheet and was then sent a notice of deficient pleading

and a 403 us388 10971. October 31 2017When the petitioner was not a prisoner. After stating this to

their office she was sent a second packet and the approximate forms for non prisoner complaint for

violation of civil rights 11-14-17. And I was not filing a complaint for violation of civil rights I was filing a

civil suit on from JS44civil cover sheet against them for evading review of my case and for damages done

to me they refuse to take my filing and sent different complaint forms to be filed out so they could

dismiss. Which they apparently did not bother to look at in case 2:17cv132 or case 2:17cv137.

Under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40. Petition for Panel Rehearing

I ask yet again to transfer my case to another circuit based on prejudice due to the fact of the

defendants filed against as in motion sent in originally with the civil cover sheet J544. And change of

venue also sent in on case 2:17cv132 and 2:17cv137.

They have yet again decided to evade review of my filings by deciding my cases as moot instead of

transferring to another district as stated in office of the United States attorneys 42. change of venue by

deciding to state case as moot and not transfer to another district for a ruling.

Why am I unable to receive a fair tribunal and not have my case transferred before a decision to dismiss

is entered.

Now comes the petitioner Teresa Miller pro se and ask that the honorable court grant the motion to

appeal, motion to appeal en banc.

Respectfully submitted

December 4 2017

Teresa Miller

A-Pp

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT

WEST VIRGINIA

Teresa Miller

Petitioner

Civil Action Num

rc&1)i SY1C4 OL cr1

+\ Cccw+

MOTiON FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Now comes the petitioner Teresa Miller pro se to ask the honorable court to transfer her case to

another circuit. Because of cases filed against the courts and state and district and circuit the

petitioner currently resides in. And due to the fact the petitioner has had previous cases

transferred from one district to another that she already had US Supreme Court Cases filed

against the State District and Circuit because the judges were disqualified from presiding in the

cases.

28 U.S. Code § 1404 Change of venue

RULE. 21. Transfer of trial

28 U.S. Code § 1332 Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; cost

The following are the facts supporting motion for change of venue.

1 have two cases filed in the US Supreme Court

Docket number 17-5849

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Circuit court of Monongalia county

Judge Phillip d Gaujot

Judge Summers

William Pennington

DeAndra Burton

Ashley Hunt

Micheal Palmer

United States District Court for the Northern District

United States. Court of Appeals for the Fourth circuit

Docket. Number 17-6598

United States District Court for Southern District

United States District court for the Fourth circuit

I have had one case transferred from the United States district court for the northern district of

West Virginia

Civil action number 2:16cv50 renamed 2:17cv-04130

For conflict of interest judges disqualified from presiding see attached transfer order

I have had a second case transferred in the United States district court for the northern district of

West Virginia clarksburg

Civil action number 1:17-cv-128

Renamed

2:17-cv-0395 I

Because the judges were disqualified from presiding see the attached orders

Now comes the petitioner Teresa Miller pro se And asks the honorable court to grant the above

said motion for change of venue due to the circumstances and previous cases that were removed

from one district to another due to the fact of conflict of interest.

Respectfully. Submitted

December 3 2017

Teresa Miller

Pobx. Ill

Morgantown Wv 26507

N-P? ~()

Case 1:16-cv-00082-IMK-RWT Document 6 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #: 204

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

TERESA MILLER,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 1:16cv82

(Judge Keeley)

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATES OF WEST VIRGINIA;

MRS. BIRD SONG; MR. MEED OR MEEK;

LAKIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, MAIL ROOM;

LAKIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, UNIT TEAM;

DR. BRYCON, Physician,

Defendants.

TRANSFER ORDER

On May 5, 2016, the prose Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The complaint concern events at Lakin Correctional Center which is situated in Mason

County, West Virginia. Mason County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this

matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

In so doing, the court is not making any determination on the merits of the Plaintiff's claims.

The Clerk is directed to transfer the case file in this matter to the Southern District of West

Virginia. The Plaintiff is hereby notified that this matter will be given a new civil case number and

will be assigned to district judge in the Southern District. The Plaintiff is further directed to send

any additional correspondence or filings in this matter to the address that will be provided by the

Southern District.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff by certified mail, return

receipt requested, to her last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

~NV

Case 1 i7..cvCQi28-MK--M.,A locument 8 H1eC 08/02/17

çf I Paoe

IN THE UNITED ST.LTES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

TERESA MILLER,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV128

(Judge Keeley)

JUDGE PHILLIP GAUJOT,

Monongalia County Circuit Court Judge;

STEVEN FITZ;

EDWARD ROLLO;

MICHAEL PENNINGTON;

DeMDRA BURTON;

ASHLEY HUNT;

MICHAEL P24ER;

ROBERT W. TRTJMBLE,

jI.

United States District Court; and

WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS,

Defendants

ORDER VACATING ORDER OF REFERRAL [DKT, NO. 4j

On July 25, 2017, the Court referred this case to the

Honorable Michael J. Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No.

4).

After being advised of a conflict in the case, the Court

VACATES its Order of Referral.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order

Vacating Order of Referral to counsel of record and to the

Honorable Michael J. Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge.

DATED: August 2, 2017,

LsI Irene N. Keeley

IRENE N. KEELEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 117-cv-00128-IMK Document 11 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #: 110

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CLARKSBURG

TERESA MILLER,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:17-CV-128

(JUDGE KEELEY)

JUDGE PHILLIP GAUJOT,

Monongalia County Circuit Court Judge;

STEVEN FITZ; EDWARD ROLLO;

MICHAEL PENNINGTON; DeANDRA BURTON;

ASHLEY HUNT; MICHAEL PAMER;

ROBERT W. TRUMBLE, United States District Court;

WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS,

CIRCUIT COURT OF MONONGALIA COUNTY;

JUDGE SUMMERS; WILLIAM PENNINGTON;

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA; and

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT;

AK1

(ç2q\

Defendants.

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

It has come to the attention of this Court that a conflict of interest exists in the

above-styled matter. Upon consideration, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §. 455, the

undersigned finds that the Judges within this District ate disqualified from presiding over

this case. Accordingly, in light of the conflict and in fairness to the parties, it is ORDERED

that this case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of West Virginia.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record

and pro se parties.

DATED: September 5, 2017

Z~k

- __72Z~

GINAM

ROH

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00050-JPB-JES Document 33. Filed 10/06/17 Page 1 of 2 PagD #: 29

OPI TH U JNOT1D T[JE BTRIICT (OU11 CV THL

iz`

IIS ORTH.EF,11 1DTRIICT OF ET VDA

T!RA MIILLR9

Plaintiff,

11/

CIVU Action No. 2:1cv5O

(Judge ally)

JUDGE PHOLLOP D GAUJOT'

EDMUND ROLLO; STEPHEN

FITOZ;. MS0 DeCHRffSTOPHER;

LEISA REMAN/l3ARRETT;,

LANCE KURTZA; WEST VIRINA

P/JOLE OPPfl

0) e4end ants.

TRANSFER ORDll

On June 17, 2016, the pro so plaintiff, Teresa Miller, filed this civil sights

complaint pursuant to 42 US?C § 1983. Currently pending is the plaintiffs motion to

transfer pursuant to 2C U.S.C. § 456. The Court notes that a case filed by the plaintiff

on Juiy 21, 2017, was transferred to the United States Pistrict Court for the Southern

(istrict vf West Virginia upon a finding that a conflict of interest existed in that ca.

Upon consideration of her Motion, and in light of the histoiy of prôceeding

ithis

Disliict involving the plaintiff, the undersigned finds that the Judges within this Dishict

are disqualified from presiding over this case. Accordingly, in light of the conflict and in

fairness to the parties, It is ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion [Doc. 32A be

GP%AiffED and this case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of West

Virginia.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff by certified

mail, return receipt requested, to her last known address as reflected on the docket

Case 2:16-cv-00050-jpBJES Document 33 Filed 10/06/17 Page 2 of 2 Pagel) #: 430

sheet.

DATED: Oc,tober 6, 2017.

i HN PRESTON BAILEY•

UThS-TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.